Agenda and draft minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the filming of meetings and this information was noted.  

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were none.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).

There was no urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.  

The Sub-Committee will first hear from the Licensing Officer.  After that, the applicant will present their application and the Sub-Committee and objectors will have the opportunity to ask questions. Then, the objectors will present their case and the Sub-Committee and objectors will have the opportunity to ask questions. 

All parties will then have the opportunity to sum up, and then the meeting will conclude to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate and reach a decision. This decision will then be provided in writing within five working days of this meeting.

The Chair provided a summary of the procedure for the meeting.  

To consider an application for a variation of a premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         This was an application for the variation of an existing premises licence.

·         The application had been submitted by FT Foods Limited who were seeking to increase the hours for late night refreshment at the premises.   

·         The applicant had submitted an update requesting alternative hoursto be considered and requested an amendment of the terminal hour of operation from 04:00 on Thursday Friday and Saturdays until 03:00 and from 04:00 from Sunday to Wednesday until 02:00.   

·         If granted, the applicant proposed a condition be added which stated there should be one SIA registered door staff on duty from 23:00 until closing time and the need for additional door staff would be risk assessed.   

·         This information had been shared with the Police but their objection to the application still stood.   

·         There was also a representation from a business in the area.

In response to questions, Ms Barrett informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         The terminal hour was proposed to be 03:00 Thursday, Friday and Saturday and 02:00 Sunday to Wednesday.   

Presentation by the applicant

Mr Armin Solimani, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         The applicant was applying for extended hours and had considerably reduced the hours applied for in consultation with the Police.   

·         No agreement had been reached as of yet between the parties.

·         The applicant belonged to a very large group of KFC franchises.

·         The Head of Operations was present at the meeting and this reflected how    seriously the corporate group took the hearing and the application - and how tightly controlled the operation was by the corporate team.

·         The restaurant was an existing premises with an unblemished and exemplary licensing record which reflected respect for the licensing regime and robust management.   

·         The applicant operated for many years without criticism apart from the criticism the Police made of people abusing the premises.

·         The applicant operated very late Temporary Event Notices (TENs) without any issues and belonged to a chain which had never been subject to a review hearing.

·         The only real concern he saw with the application was the crime and disorder objective and the representations raised by the Police.

·         There was no real evidence to suggest possible noise nuisance.

·         The environmental health service who were experts on noise nuisance had not made a representation.

·         Residents in the local area had not made a representation.

·         The only representation that mentioned nuisance was from a competing chicken shop premises. This needed to be considered carefully given it was a trade objection. No clear evidence had been provided as to why a premises run by the objector would cause less nuisance.

·         The competing premises had a licence until 02:00 and was a chicken shop that operated late into the night.

·         The only real question with the application was whether it would contribute to crime and disorder in the area.

·         The reason the Police gave for the application being a crime and disorder issue was that, historically, criminals had used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider an application for a new premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         The application had been submitted by Mr Tabrez Hussain had also been nominated as the designated premises supervisor (DPS).

·         The application sought the supply of alcohol Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 23:00. The supply of alcohol would be for consumption off the premises.     

·         The application offered conditions on page 61 of the agenda papers.

Presentation by the applicant

Ms Gill Sherratt, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         This was a family-run business and had been established for over 30 years.  

·         The business had been started by Mr Hussain’s father and uncle and he was now an operations director and ran it with his brother and his cousins.

·         The family started their business in 1996 with off licences and moved on to operating convenience stores. They now had 20 convenience stores operating in inner London. Six of these operated 24 hours a day.

·         The last licence granted in a cumulative impact zone to the business was in October 2025.     

·         The business was an extremely responsible professional company.

·         They operated their various premises without issues or complaints or risks to the licensing objectives.

·         The business provided lots of money to charity and had an extremely proactive relationship with all authorities including the Police, particularly by assisting them with any requests for CCTV.

·         Her organisation had represented the business for around 15 years.

·         She had considered the statement of licensing policy and conducted a risk assessment when considering the application.

·         She was aware that it was located in the Broadwater Farm residential estate.

·         The premises related to a council owned premises that had been earmarked specifically for a retail outlet.

·         The premises was being redeveloped by the Council who would be the landlord and the applicant was waiting to finalise the lease. This could only be done if the licence was granted from the hours of 07:00 to 23:00.

·         Once completed, the applicant intended to invest approximately £500,000 in creating modern facilities.

·         Convenience stores were more than just selling groceries. The premises would be a nicer store and alcohol would make about 15% of sales.

·         The Public Health representation did not hold up within the context of the Licensing Act.     

·         Public Health had provided generalised statistics regarding the area; that it was deprived and the risk alcohol presented to vulnerable groups. This, nor the Council's health and well-being strategy was disputed. However, the applicant had been working amongst residential communities for 30 years, was part of it, understood the demographic, understood the challenges that people faced and the risks that alcohol presented to health and well-being.

·         Public Health had stated that they wanted to ensure the Sub-Committee took into account health considerations in any licensing decisions, but Public Health was not a licensing objective. This decision was ratified by the Government in 2017 at their overview of the licensing system at the House      of Lords.

·         Public Health were suggesting that the Sub-Committee limit the application based on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider any items of urgent business as identified at item 3.

There were no new items of urgent business.