The Harrow Council Licensing Panel met on Wednesday 14 October 2026 to consider an application for a new premises licence for 439 Alexandra Avenue, Harrow. After hearing representations from the applicant, objectors, and responsible authorities, the panel resolved to refuse the premises licence application.

Refusal of Premises Licence for 439 Alexandra Avenue

The Licensing Panel of Harrow Council refused the application for a new premises licence for Kankudi Limited at 439 Alexandra Avenue, Harrow, HA2 9SE. The decision was made after careful consideration of all relevant information, including written and oral representations from all parties, the Licensing Act 2003, statutory guidance, and Harrow Council's Statement of Licensing Policy.

The applicant, Kankudi Limited, sought a licence for licensable activities including the sale of alcohol, performance of dance, live music, regulated entertainment, and late-night refreshment. The proposed hours were extensive, with licensable activities sought until 3:00 am Sunday to Wednesday and 4:00 am Thursday to Saturday, and the premises to remain open to the public until 3:30 am and 4:30 am respectively. The application also included proposals for non-standard timings, allowing for an additional two hours on specified holidays and festivals.

Numerous objections were received from local residents and businesses, primarily citing concerns related to the prevention of public nuisance, crime and disorder, public safety, and the protection of children from harm. Key concerns included potential noise and vibration from amplified music, customer noise during arrival and dispersal, litter, street drinking, anti-social behaviour, and traffic and parking issues. The Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority also made representations opposing the application, highlighting concerns about the suitability and safety of the premises, inadequate facilities, and the potential for increased noise and disorder.

While the applicant's representative proposed amendments to the hours and submitted additional conditions, including those agreed with the Metropolitan Police, the Panel concluded that these measures were not sufficiently comprehensive or evidenced to adequately promote the licensing objectives. Specifically, the Panel found that the proposals did not sufficiently demonstrate how noise from music, patrons, smoking, and dispersal could be controlled throughout the proposed late-night hours. The Panel also noted deficiencies in the evidence regarding the premises' acoustic performance, the specification of any noise limiter, and the development of a robust dispersal policy.

The Panel balanced the applicant's interest in operating the business against the legitimate interests of nearby residents and concluded that refusal was the appropriate and proportionate step to promote the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. The Panel determined that no condition or combination of conditions advanced at the hearing would reduce the identified risks to an acceptable level.

The applicant has the right to appeal this decision to the magistrates' court within 21 days of notification.