Agenda and minutes

PREMISES

Planet’s Premier Food & Wine

8-10 Moray Way

Romford

RM1 4YD

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

An application for a premises licence under s.17 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).

APPLICANT

Mr Dhansukh Patel

3, Beauly Court

Beauly Way

Romford

RM1 4XD

1.         Details of the application

Seasonal variations & Non-standard timings

There were no seasonal variations or non-standard timings on this application.

2.         Promotion of the Licensing Objectives

The applicant acted in accordance with premises licence regulations 25 and 26 relating to the advertising of the application.  The required newspaper advertisement was installed in the Romford Recorder on Friday 22 June 2012. 

3.         Details of Representations

Valid representations could only address the four licensing objectives

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• The prevention of public nuisance;
• The protection of children from harm; and
• Public Safety.

There were 155 valid representations against this application from interested parties.  (One of the individual letters had a petition attached with 15 signatures and addresses).  132 of these were the same letter with individual names and addresses placed on them. (One of these letters had a petition attached with 13 signatures).  A number of the licensing objectives were addressed in these representations. 

There were no representations against this application from any of the responsible authorities.

Responsible Authorities

The Metropolitan Police

Public Health

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

The Health & Safety Enforcing Authority

The Trading Standards Service

Planning Control & Enforcement

Children & Families Service

Councillor Michael Armstrong.

Councillor Armstrong stated that the evidence before the Sub-Committee showed that there was wide and strong local opposition to the granting of an alcohol licence to the applicant.  He advanced the following points in support of the objections:

1. A restrictive covenant existed which not only limited the hours shops in the parade could stay open, but also forbade the sale of alcohol.

2. The nature of the business was one which would not bring anything new to the area.  He cited the proximity of other outlets (including a public house) where alcohol was sold and stated that where there were too many businesses chasing limited sales, prices were likely to be driven down and this would be to the detriment of public order as well as encouraging young people to drink – which was in opposition to the Council’s intentions.

3. There were genuine concerns about the threat of crime and disorder as experienced by residents living in the vicinity of the “white shops” (Pettits Lane junction with the Eastern Avenue) where a Dispersal Order had to be employed.

4. Concerns about public safety were focused on the potential for traffic to increase in the area which was residential.  He stated that the roads were narrow and already busy. 

5. Protecting children from harm.  Residents were worried about the impact an alcohol outlet would have being so close (directly opposite a church and church hall which young children regularly attended for a variety of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.