Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES

Drinks Direct

59 Chippenham Road

Romford

RM3 8HL

APPLICANT

Mr Ravinder Singh Grover

Details of the application

This application for a premises licence is made by Mr Ravinder Singh Grover under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003. The application was received by Havering’s Licensing Authority on 5th May 2026.

This application seeks to permit the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises during the following hours:

•           Monday to Saturday – 08:00 to 23:00

•           Sunday – 10:00 to 22:30

Comments and observations on the application

This premises had been previously licensed as The Drinks Seller off-licence, a licence

which had been in force since the Act came into force in 2005; however, the licence was

revoked in April of this year.  This application appears to be intended to licence the

outlet once again as an off-licence.

Summary

There were no representations against this application from interested persons.

There was one representation against this application from a responsible authority,

namely Havering’s Licensing Authority.  The Licensing Authority’s representation is

based upon concerns further to the applicant’s previous history in relation to licensed

premises and the application’s perceived failure to address the demands of the

Gooshays’ cumulative impact policy.

Determination of application for a new premises licence

1.         The Sub-Committee had considered an application for a premises licence for Drinks Direct, situated at 59 Chippenham Road, Romford, RM3 8HL and representations against the application had been received from the Council’s Licensing Team on the grounds of Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety and Protection of Children from Harm.

2.         There were no representations against this application from any other responsible authorities or local residents. 

3.         The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance created under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 when determining an application for a new premises licence. Where relevant representations are made, the authority must hold a hearing and then take such steps, as it considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. These steps may include rejecting the application or modifying the conditions to the extent that the authority considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives or granting the application.

Decision: Refused

4.         Having read all written representations and heard oral representations the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application on the basis that granting the licence will undermine the licencing objectives.  

5.         In arriving at their decision, the Sub-Committee was mindful of the Secretary of States’ guidance which states;

a.         Responsible authorities under the 2003 Act are automatically notified of all new applications. While all responsible authorities may make representations regarding applications for licences, it is the responsibility of each responsible authority to determine when they have appropriate grounds to do so. 

b.         Licensing authorities are best placed to determine what actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives in their areas. All licensing determinations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. They should take into account any representations or objections that have been received from responsible authorities or other persons, and representations made by the applicant or premises user as the case may be.

c.         The authority’s determination should be evidence-based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.

d.         The conditions that are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives should emerge initially from the risk assessment carried out by a prospective licence.

e.         The licensing authority may not impose any conditions unless its discretion has been exercised following receipt of relevant representations and it is satisfied as a result of a hearing that it is appropriate to impose conditions to promote one or more of the four licensing objectives.

6.         The Sub-Committee was mindful of the council’s licensing policy which states;

a.         For areas where a cumulative impact policy is adopted, it creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that will add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact and not impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

b.         It must be stressed that the rebuttable presumption created by the cumulative impact policy does not relieve responsible authorities or other persons of the need to make relevant representations. If there are no representations, the Licensing Authority must grant the application consistent with the operating schedule submitted.

c.         The cumulative impact policy is not absolute. The circumstances of each application within the cumulative impact area will be considered upon its own merits and the Licensing Authority shall permit licences and certificates that are unlikely to add to the cumulative impact and not impact adversely on the licensing objectives.

d.         Where the Licensing Authority is of the view that the number, type and density of premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises around the Farnham Road & Hilldene Avenue area is having a cumulative impact and undermining the licensing objectives and a cumulative impact policy has been adopted in this area. It is likely that granting further licences would be inconsistent with the authority’s duty to promote the licensing objectives.

e.         In completing the operating schedule, applicants are expected to have regard to the licensing policy which sets out the expectations of the Authority as to the steps that are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

f.          Where specific policies apply in the area (for example, a Cumulative Impact Policy), applicants are also expected to:

•           Demonstrate an understanding of how the Policy impacts on their application,

•           Identify any measures they will take to mitigate the impact, and 

•           Confirm why they consider their application should be an exception to the Policy.

g.         Nothing in the policy is intended to undermine the rights of any person to apply under the 2003 Act for any of the variety of permissions and have that application considered on its individual merits.

7.         The Sub-Committee was further mindful of general public principles including the issue of fettering in that "fettering of discretion" is a ground for illegality where a public body adopts such a rigid policy that it refuses to genuinely consider individual cases or make exceptions. Decision-makers must retain an open mind and balance guidance with individual merits.

Licensing Authority

8.         The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Authority who highlighted two fundamental issues which has caused representations to be made against the application; the applicant’s history of offending and the premises being situated in a highly stressed area within a designated cumulative impact area, both issues going hand in hand together.

9.         The Sub-Committee was told that the applicant demonstrates a history of poor management and lack of competency as a licence holder for the following reasons;

a.         In 2012, the applicant lost his premises licence in respect of a premises situated in Slough for;

i.          Selling alcohol to an underage person,

ii.         Selling cigarettes to an underage person,

iii.        Selling fireworks in breach of the firework licence conditions, and

iv.        Was found in possession for sale of counterfeit alcohol, condoms and batteries.

b.         In 2015, the applicant was again found to be in possession of counterfeit cigarettes and alcohol by the Essex Trading Standards team.

c.         In 2017, the applicant lost his premises licence once again for another premises situated in Essex due to be found employing 2 illegal workers.

10.       The Sub-Committee was then told that the applicant has included some basic conditions in his operating schedule but the conditions do not address the issues identified in the Farnham Road & Hilldene Avenue area which are detailed in the council’s licensing policy nor had the applicant made any contact with the licensing authority to discuss the letter of representations and the concerns of the authority. Contact was only first made by the applicant 3 working days before the hearing.

11.       The Licensing Authority then highlighted parts of the council’s licensing policy;

a.         Where a premises is situated in a Cumulative Impact Area, the policy creates a rebuttal presumption to refuse an application unless the applicant can demonstrate the granting of the application will not undermine the licensing objectives. 

b.         The policy requires the applicant demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management in that;

i.          The applicant is able to run their business lawfully and in accordance with good business practices,

ii.         Is able to demonstrate a track record of compliance with legal requirements.

iii.        Where there is a history of non-compliance associated with the premises applicants will need to establish evidence of improvement in management standards and procedures.

12.       The licensing authority added that the applicant had not provided any CV of good practice, character references, training undertaken or anything else in his application or by way of engagement to demonstrate the applicant can be trusted with a premises licence. The subcommittee was reminded the applicant had lost his licence on two occasions for very serious offences and this the premises for which he seeks a licence is situated in a very problematic area. 

Applicant

13.       Turning to the applicant, the applicant’s main points of contention presented to the Sub Committee were;

a.         The applicant’s offending did not result in any convictions, and the offending is now historic therefore little weight should be given to his previous offending. 

b.         The council’s licensing policy is almost 5 years old and the evidence gathered which resulted in the designation of the cumulative impact zone was limited to only 30 consultation responses.

c.         The rebuttable presumption found in the licensing policy is not valid as the licensing regime is a permissive process. The Secretary of States’ guidance previously gave guidance on this but now omits any mention of a rebuttal presumption.

d.         The licensing authority haven’t provided sufficient evidence to support their position that can withhold scrutiny and the police who are the Sub-Committee’s main source of advice on crime and disorder have not made any representations against the application.

e.         Further conditions are proposed in addition to those found in the operating schedule to promote the four licensing objectives

f.          The premises will bring economic benefit to the area.

Deliberations 

14.       The Sub-Committee deliberated and found that the evidence presented by the licensing authority in respect of the applicant’s offending to be highly critical and of upmost importance. The Sub-Committee could not minimise the fact that the applicant as a premises licence holder for two premises was subject to the licensing review process with both review’s resulting in the revocation of the premises licence. The reviews were undertaken by two different licensing authorities, and both reviews were triggered due to the very serious offending by the applicant. The members noted that the revocations were 5 years apart demonstrating a total disregard of the licensing regime by the applicant. The offences ranged from sale of alcohol to minors to the employment of illegal workers etc. The Sub-Committee were conscious that revocation of a premises licence is often a last resort by a licensing authority. The applicant provided nothing to the Sub-Committee to persuade them that he now will be a competent premises licence holder, will ensure the promotion of the four licensing objectives at the premises or what steps he has taken since his history of offending to demonstrate he has a commitment to high standards of management. 

15.       The Sub-Committee deliberated and found that the council’s licensing policy remains current therefore valid. The Sub-Committee took the view that it was not for the committee to dive into the evidence gathered by the various responsible authorities and consultation response which shaped the policy. Additionally, the Sub-Committee did not accept the applicant’s interpretation of the licensing regime that the rebuttal presumption is invalid as the policy explicitly states that even with such presumption, it does not relieve responsible authorities or other persons of the need to make relevant representations and all licensing determinations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. These statements ensure that the Sub-Committee are aware of the policy limitations and also confirms that the presumption does not conflict with the permissive process. The employment of the rebuttal presumption does not change the fundamental way that decisions are made under the 2003 Act. 

16.       The Sub-Committee found that the licensing authority’s relying on Mr Oisin Daly’s personal experience of the area as a Havering Licencing Officer coupled with the premises being designated as a Cumulative Impact Area is sufficient and sound evidence that the premises is situated in a problematic area. Mr Oisin Daly’s evidence and the licensing policy is consistent with the local knowledge of the Sub-Committee in that the area suffers from alcohol related issues. The Sub-Committee did not find any reason to depart from the council’s licensing policy or that it’s application will fetter their decision making.

17.       The Sub-Committee considered the applicant’s offending, weak operating schedule, and lack of engagement with the licensing authority and found that the applicant significantly falls short of high standards of management required to hold a premises licence in such area and to ensure the licensing regime is not undermined. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant himself stated in the hearing that he was unaware of the council’s statement of licensing policy and the issues within the area. This admission substantiated the licensing authority’s concerns that the operating schedule does not demonstrate sufficient steps to ensure the granting of the application will not add to the existing pressures in the area and the applicant’s lack of overall competency. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was given an opportunity to strengthen his application by considering the licensing policy mentioned in the letter of representations of the licensing authority but chose to not to engage. The Sub-Committee found that the applicant’s previous history of offending and lack of understanding of the area will only undermine the licensing objectives if the application is granted, irrespective of the rebuttal presumption. In other words, even if there was no rebuttable presumption, reconciling the licensing authority’s representations against the application, the application would still be refused.

18.       The Sub-Committee found that imposing conditions as a step to promote the licensing objectives is inappropriate due to the applicant’s poor track record as a licence holder and the various serious offences committed.  The applicant should have identified and proposed good conditions by taking into account the cumulative impact area as part of his risk assessment when making his application. In any case, the Sub-Committee could not trust the applicant with a licence even it did include good conditions. 

19.       The Sub-Committee did consider that no other responsible authority made representations against the application, in particular the police, but found that licensing the absence of the police’s representations does not minimise the licensing authority's objections and evidence against the application. 

20.       Finally, the Sub-Committee considered the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits but found again the only step to promote the licensing objectives is to refuse the application. 

Right of Appeal

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.