Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

In coming to its decision, the sub-committee carefully considered the application before it as set out in the agenda papers published prior to the hearing. It considered both the written and oral submissions of all those who made representations in relation to the application, including those made in support by Mr Daljeet Singh Kakar, the applicant, and Mr Surendra Panchal, his agent. It also considered the three representations in objection to the application. These were made by two responsible authorities, PC James Bradshaw, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police and Abbi Shaw, on behalf of the Ealing Council Community Safety Team. One representation was made in objection by the ward councillor, Councillor Yoel Gordon.

The sub-committee considered the Home Office (January 2024) Revised Guidance issued under S182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and, Ealing Council Statement of Licensing Policy.

On careful consideration of the matter, the sub-committee resolved to grant the application as applied for, subject to the one additional condition that:

·       No staff who are employed at the premises currently under the Best Food & Wine licence be employed at the premises under this licence for The Nest Food & Wine or be present during licensable hours.

As a preliminary matter, prior to the meeting being livestreamed, the Chair, Councillor Anthony Kelly, declared that he had sat as chair of a licensing sub-committee which considered an application to the review the premises licence of the existing operator at this premises, trading under the name The Best Food & Wine. The sub-committee’s decision in relation to the application to review The Best Food & Wine was to revoke the licence.

Councillor Kelly asked the applicant Mr Kakar, through his agent Mr Panchal, whether they had any objections to his sitting as Chair for the hearing. No objections were raised. Councillor Kelly considered that his part in the previous review in relation to The Best Food & Wine did not prejudice his decision making for this hearing, and that he would consider the matter with an open mind and on the merits of the application before him.

The Chair invited the clerk to start the live stream of the meeting. He introduced the sub-committee and those in attendance and explained the procedure to be followed at the hearing.

Applicant’s presentation

Mr Surendra Panchal, agent for the applicant, was invited to present the application. Mr Panchal explained that the application was brought by a responsible applicant with good experience of running licenced premises. The applicant, Mr Kakar, had 2 years’ experience of running an off-licence as well as experience through a family business of running a bar and restaurant.

The applicant had taken a considered approach to taking on the business at 106-108 Uxbridge Road. He had learnt about the history of the premises, including the difficulties in the local area with street drinking, and had attended a meeting with responsible authorities to listen to their concerns about the impact of conducting licensable activities on the site.

Mr Panchal considered that there was a sufficient set of conditions proposed as part of the application and that these conditions adequately addressed the concerns that the licence could contribute to anti-social behaviour challenges in the area.

The sub-committee and objectors were invited to ask questions of the applicant and his agent.

PC James Bradshaw, Metropolitan Police, asked the following questions:

·       If the applicant was intending to change the store’s offer to reduce its reliance on alcohol sales, what were the applicant’s plans for change?

·       Did the applicant have any formal plans showing how the new shop was going to be laid out?

·       When were the planned changes going to be implemented?

·       With the proposed changes, why was an alcohol licence still necessary?

·       Was Mr Kakar aware of the challenges in the area relating to street drinking and anti-social behaviour?

In response to PC Bradshaw’s questions, Mr Panchal and Mr Kakar gave the following responses:

·       The applicant intended to increase the store’s provision of groceries and household goods, allowing it to reduce its provision of alcohol to a small amount.

·       The applicant did have plans for a new shop layout, which he was still developing. Mr Kakar explained to the sub-committee the proposals for the design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.