Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 122 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Taiwo Adeoye - 01708 433079 Email: taiwo.adeoye@havering.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION TO A PREMISES LICENCE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LICENSING ACT 2003 ("the Act"). (if any) - receive Decision: PREMISES North Street Convenient Stores 17 Hainault Road Romford RM5 3AA
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Application for a variation to a premises licenceunder section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).
APPLICANT Mr Rajalingam Easwaralingam 17 Hainault Road Romford RM5 3AA
1. Details of the application
The current premises licence conditions
The application seeks to permit the following:
2. Promotion of the Licensing Objectives
The applicant completed the operating schedule, which formed part of the application, to promote the four licensing objectives.
The applicant acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of the pertinent regulations governing the advertising of such applications. The required public notice was installed in the 28 February 2014 edition of the Romford Recorder.
3. Details of Representations
Valid representations may only address the four licensing objectives
There was one representation against this application from an interested party.
There were no representations against this application from responsible authorities.
Responsible Authorities
Metropolitan Police: None
London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (“LFEPA”): None.
Planning Control & Enforcement: None.
Children & Families Service: None
Trading Standards Service: None
The Magistrates Court: None
Interested parties’ representation
The representation against this application was based upon the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective.
Mr Scutcher attended the hearing. He addressed the Sub-Committee stating that they lived next door to the premises, and that the area was mainly a residential area which contained many young families. He stated that extended hours would cause noise disturbance from people going in and out of the premises and in addition the slamming of car doors of people using the shop late in the evening. Mr Scutcher added that his representations at the application hearing in 2012 were still valid. He was of the opinion that the reasons for the restriction of licensed hours granted at that time were still relevant today and as such requested that the sub-committee consider the residents that live nearby to the premises.
In response to a question, Mr Scutcher informed the sub-committee that parking in the area was mainly resident parking.
4. Applicant’s response.
Mr Stewart Gibson, representative to the applicant responded to the representation from the interested party.
He stated that the applicant needed these hours in order to get parity with other competitors in the area. That the variation hours applied for would bring the premises licensable hours in line with its intended trading hours. Mr Gibson was of the opinion that a representation under the prevention of public nuisance should be based on fact but there was no evidence of any nuisance caused by, or any complaints about, the premises. The sub-committee was informed that the premises was situated on a one-way street and as ... view the full decision text for item 2. Minutes: PREMISES North Street Convenient Stores 17 Hainault Road Romford RM5 3AA
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Application for a variation to a premises licenceunder section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”).
APPLICANT Mr Rajalingam Easwaralingam 17 Hainault Road Romford RM5 3AA
1. Details of the application
The current premises licence conditions
The application seeks to permit the following:
2. Promotion of the Licensing Objectives
The applicant completed the operating schedule, which formed part of the application, to promote the four licensing objectives.
The applicant acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of the pertinent regulations governing the advertising of such applications. The required public notice was installed in the 28 February 2014 edition of the Romford Recorder.
3. Details of Representations
Valid representations may only address the four licensing objectives
There was one representation against this application from an interested party.
There were no representations against this application from responsible authorities.
Responsible Authorities
Metropolitan Police: None
London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (“LFEPA”): None.
Planning Control & Enforcement: None.
Children & Families Service: None
Trading Standards Service: None
The Magistrates Court: None
Interested parties’ representation
The representation against this application was based upon the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective.
Mr Scutcher attended the hearing. He addressed the Sub-Committee stating that they lived next door to the premises, and that the area was mainly a residential area which contained many young families. He stated that extended hours would cause noise disturbance from people going in and out of the premises and in addition the slamming of car doors of people using the shop late in the evening. Mr Scutcher added that his representations at the application hearing in 2012 were still valid. He was of the opinion that the reasons for the restriction of licensed hours granted at that time were still relevant today and as such requested that the sub-committee consider the residents that live nearby to the premises.
In response to a question, Mr Scutcher informed the sub-committee that parking in the area was mainly resident parking.
4. Applicant’s response.
Mr Stewart Gibson, representative to the applicant responded to the representation from the interested party.
He stated that the applicant needed these hours in order to get parity with other competitors in the area. That the variation hours applied for would bring the premises licensable hours in line with its intended trading hours. Mr Gibson was of the opinion that a representation under the prevention of public nuisance should be based on fact but there was no evidence of any nuisance caused by, or any complaints about, the premises. The sub-committee was informed that the premises was situated on a one-way street and as ... view the full minutes text for item 2. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||