Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Hammersmith and Fulham Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Review: AB Wines, Licensing Sub-Committee - Tuesday, 4th November, 2025 6.30 pm
November 4, 2025 Licensing Sub-Committee View on council website Watch video of meeting Read transcript (Professional subscription required)Summary
Open Council Network is an independent organisation. We report on Hammersmith and Fulham and are not the council. About us
The Licensing Sub-Committee of Hammersmith and Fulham Council met on Tuesday 04 November 2025 to review the premises licence for AB Wines, located at 218 Uxbridge Road, London, W12 7JD. After considering all evidence and representations, the committee decided to revoke the licence.
Review of AB Wines Premises Licence
The committee considered an application by the Metropolitan Police for a review of the premises licence for AB Wines. The grounds for the review were the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.
The Metropolitan Police, represented by PC Charlotte Bennett, presented evidence detailing several alleged breaches of the licence conditions. These included the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) allegedly handling stolen goods, a failure to operate the CCTV system effectively, the storage of high-strength alcohol above the permitted ABV, and a failure to notify Trading Standards of an attempted sale of stolen alcohol. PC Bennett highlighted that AB Wines had been subject to previous reviews in 2014 and 2020 due to its contribution to anti-social behaviour through the sale of high-strength alcohol. She argued that the DPS had demonstrated a disregard for licensing objectives and was not a suitable manager for the premises. The police presented reports detailing numerous incidents of anti-social behaviour, including public urination, drug dealing, and violence, in the vicinity of AB Wines, with residents reporting that these issues were linked to the premises.
Representing the premises licence holder, Noel A. Samaroo, a licensing agent, argued that AB Wines was being unfairly scapegoated for wider issues in the area, exacerbated by the relocation of a nearby bus stop. He stated that the incident involving stolen goods was a one-off, where the DPS acted under duress to de-escalate a situation. He also claimed that the high-strength alcohol found was out-of-date stock in a broken fridge and not intended for sale. Mr. Samaroo presented evidence of proactive engagement by the licence holder with authorities and highlighted remedial actions taken, including a new CCTV system and staff training. He argued that revocation would be disproportionate and that the premises served the local community.
Residents George and Cruz Maria, who supported the review, described experiencing significant anti-social behaviour, including harassment, intimidation, and public indecency, which they linked to the sale of alcohol from AB Wines. They stated that they felt unsafe walking past the premises with their children and had reported incidents to the police numerous times.
The committee heard from Councillor Aliya Afzal-Khan and Councillor Wesley Harcourt, who asked detailed questions of all parties regarding the evidence, the history of the premises, and the actions taken by both the police and the licence holder. A key point of discussion was the alleged handling of stolen goods and whether the actions constituted a criminal offence. The police maintained their stance that the evidence supported the allegation.
Following deliberation, the Licensing Sub-Committee decided to revoke the premises licence for AB Wines. The committee cited the promotion of the four licensing objectives as the basis for their decision, taking into account the history of the premises, the evidence presented regarding breaches of licence conditions, and the significant number of representations from residents detailing ongoing anti-social behaviour linked to the premises. The committee concluded that revocation was the most appropriate and proportionate action.
The decision will be formally notified to the parties, and any party unhappy with the decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days.
Attendees
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Agenda
Additional Documents