The Licensing Sub-Committee of Hillingdon Council met on Tuesday 24 July 2018 to consider an application for a premises licence. The application was refused due to concerns about the applicant's independence from previous licence holders and a lack of satisfactory evidence.

Refusal of Premises Licence Application for Ocean Superstore

The Licensing Sub-Committee refused the application for a premises licence for Ocean Superstore, located at 153 Northside Road. The decision was made after extensive discussion and consideration of representations from the Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority.

Concerns Raised:

• Lack of Independence: A primary concern was the applicant's ability to demonstrate a clear separation from the previous licence holders, Mr. Satchdeva and Mr. Kapoor. The previous licence for the premises had been revoked on 20 February 2018, and a subsequent application was refused on 23 April 2018. Mr. Satchdeva was also appealing the revocation to the magistrate's court.
• Insufficient Evidence: Responsible authorities, including the Metropolitan Police and Stephanie Waterford, representing the Licensing Authority, stated they had not received sufficient or robust evidence to satisfy them that the application was a genuine and independent purchase. This included a lack of satisfactory documentation regarding the business acquisition.
• Circumventing Legislation: Case law was referenced, highlighting that circumventing current legislation could lead to a loss of public confidence. The subcommittee was concerned that this application might be an attempt to continue licensable activities from the premises regardless of who held the licence, potentially frustrating the council's previous decisions.
• Applicant's Knowledge and Preparedness: The applicant, Mr. Varyam Singh Chopra, and his representative, Mr. Panchal, were questioned extensively. Concerns were raised about Mr. Chopra's apparent lack of detailed knowledge of the business operations, costs, and his ability to uphold the licensing objectives. The late submission of crucial documents, such as the personal licence and VAT registration, also contributed to the subcommittee's doubts.
• Lease Agreement and Landlord: While Mr. Chopra stated he was dealing directly with the freeholder, Mr. Bhatia, and not the previous owners, questions remained about the certainty of the lease termination for the previous licence holder and the exact nature of Mr. Bhatia's role.
• Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS): There were significant concerns regarding the suitability of Mr. Chopra as the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). PC Emily Mitchell stated that the police had not received any application or conducted any checks on Mr. Chopra for this role, despite him being named as the DPS on the application. While Mr. Chopra had obtained a personal licence from the London Borough of Ealing, the police indicated they would conduct their own checks for a DPS application within Hillingdon.

Applicant's Arguments:

• Mr. Panchal argued that Mr. Chopra was an independent businessman and that the application was being processed concurrently with his personal licence application, as permitted by the Licensing Act 2003.
• He stated that Mr. Chopra had made efforts to gather the required documentation, explaining that delays were due to solicitors and accountants working at their own pace.
• Mr. Chopra expressed his intention to run the business well, change the branding to CK Food and Wine Limited, and employ staff, adhering to minimum wage standards. He also stated he would bar the previous owners, Mr. Satchdeva and Mr. Kapoor, from the premises.

Decision:

The subcommittee decided to refuse the application. Councillor Roy Chamdal, Chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee, along with Councillor Janet Gardner and Councillor Teji Barnes, concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate independence from the previous licence holders or to satisfy the responsible authorities that the licensing objectives would be upheld. The ongoing appeal by the previous licence holder further complicated the situation, leading to concerns that the application was an attempt to circumvent previous decisions.