Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 124 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Richard Cursons - 01708 432430 Email: richard.cursons@havering.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Temporary Event Notice applications for Romford Mini Market Application for three temporary event notices given by Mr G Chopra under section 100 of the Licensing Act 2003. Decision: PREMISES Romford Mini Market 84 South Street Romford Essex RM1 1RX
APPLICANT Mr Gul Chopra 24 Cains Lane Feltham TW14 9RH
DETAILS OF APPLICATION Three Temporary Event Notice applications had been made under section 100 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).
1. Details of the application:
The application was amended by the applicant at the Hearing to request the following:
2. Grounds of objection
PC David Fern of the Metropolitan Police submitted an objection on the grounds that the TENs would have a negative impact on the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. PC Fern’s objection notice also asserted that the area in which the premises is located is a designated cumulative impact zone and as such the applications would add to the cumulative impact upon the licensing objectives.
3. Details of representations
Metropolitan Police:
PC David Fern reiterated his written objection against the application.
He commented that the hours requested in the three TEN applications would lead to cumulative impact in an area which had been recognised as suffering from alcohol-related violence and disturbance; this was particularly problematic during the month of December when such recorded incidents were at their highest.
PC Fern made reference to an incident where the manager of a nearby pub had reported seeing members of the public purchase alcohol from one of the off-licensed shop premises in South Street, and then consume the alcohol in front of the pub. When the manager approached them to request they leave the area he was verbally abused and felt threatened by their intoxicated behaviour.
PC Fern explained that the incident was indicative of the attitude displayed by some shop keepers in the area who readily sold alcohol to customers despite there being a restriction within Romford Town Centre which prevents alcohol being consumed in a public place. He considered pre-loading, where alcohol is purchased from licensed shop premises then consumed in a public place before moving on to the pubs and clubs of Romford, to be a contributory to alcohol-fuelled violence.
PC Fern commented that the applicant had sought to reduce the hours of operation but this, in his view, would not alleviate the concerns of Police regarding preloading and instances of alcohol-fuelled violence in the area.
He informed the Sub-Committee that the Police also had concerns that the applicant had failed to promote the licensing objectives due to alleged selling of counterfeit alcohol and non-duty paid cigarettes.
PC Fern requested that the applications be refused in their entirety.
4. Applicant’s response:
Mr Hopkins, the applicant’s representative, commented that the designated cumulative impact zone was not applicable for TEN applications and should be disregarded. In addition, despite what the Council’s Licensing Officer had written in his report to the Sub-Committee, it was common practice for TEN applications to be used for such events.
Minutes: PREMISES Romford Mini Market 84 South Street Romford Essex RM1 1RX
APPLICANT Mr Gul Chopra 24 Cains Lane Feltham TW14 9RH
DETAILS OF APPLICATION Three Temporary Event Notice applications had been made under section 100 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).
1. Details of the application:
The application was amended by the applicant at the Hearing to request the following:
2. Grounds of objection
PC David Fern of the Metropolitan Police submitted an objection on the grounds that the TENs would have a negative impact on the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. PC Fern’s objection notice also asserted that the area in which the premises is located is a designated cumulative impact zone and as such the applications would add to the cumulative impact upon the licensing objectives.
3. Details of representations
Metropolitan Police:
PC David Fern reiterated his written objection against the application.
He commented that the hours requested in the three TEN applications would lead to cumulative impact in an area which had been recognised as suffering from alcohol-related violence and disturbance; this was particularly problematic during the month of December when such recorded incidents were at their highest.
PC Fern made reference to an incident where the manager of a nearby pub had reported seeing members of the public purchase alcohol from one of the off-licensed shop premises in South Street, and then consume the alcohol in front of the pub. When the manager approached them to request they leave the area he was verbally abused and felt threatened by their intoxicated behaviour.
PC Fern explained that the incident was indicative of the attitude displayed by some shop keepers in the area who readily sold alcohol to customers despite there being a restriction within Romford Town Centre which prevents alcohol being consumed in a public place. He considered pre-loading, where alcohol is purchased from licensed shop premises then consumed in a public place before moving on to the pubs and clubs of Romford, to be a contributory to alcohol-fuelled violence.
PC Fern commented that the applicant had sought to reduce the hours of operation but this, in his view, would not alleviate the concerns of Police regarding preloading and instances of alcohol-fuelled violence in the area.
He informed the Sub-Committee that the Police also had concerns that the applicant had failed to promote the licensing objectives due to alleged selling of counterfeit alcohol and non-duty paid cigarettes.
PC Fern requested that the applications be refused in their entirety.
4. Applicant’s response:
Mr Hopkins, the applicant’s representative, commented that the designated cumulative impact zone was not applicable for TEN applications and should be disregarded. In addition, despite what the Council’s Licensing Officer had written in his report to the Sub-Committee, it was common practice for TEN applications to be used for such events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||