Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

In coming to its decision, the sub-committee carefully considered the application before it, which was set out in the agenda papers published prior to the hearing. It considered the oral representations made in support of the application, made at the hearing by Mrs Manjit Kumar, the applicant, and by her agent, Mr Surendra Panchal. The sub-committee also considered the written and oral representation made in objection to application by a responsible authority, Mr Robert Dear, on behalf of the Licensing Compliance and Enforcement Team.

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 Licensing Sub-Committee resolved to grant the application in full.

The Chair introduced those in attendance and explained the procedure to be followed at the hearing.

Applicant’s presentation:

Mr Surendra Panchal was invited to present the application on behalf of the applicant, Mrs Kumar. Mr Panchal informed the sub-committee of Mrs Kumar’s background and experience for running a licenced premise. Mrs Kumar obtained her licence in 2019, at which time she was working in an airport in the VAT department. Since 2019, she had been running the Station Convenience Store as a corner shop selling groceries, vapes and cigarettes. There had been no recorded breaches in any regulations recorded by local authorities. Mrs Kumar understood the 4 licensing objectives and had put forward an application with an extensive set of conditions which were designed to allay any concerns regarding public nuisance or crime and disorder.

Mr Panchal referred to the representation in objection to the application received from Mr Robert Dear on behalf of the Licensing Authority. Mr Panchal considered that much of Mr Dear’s representation related to Mrs Kumar’s brother-in-law and his conduct at separate premises to Mrs Kumar’s in 2019. Mr Panchal informed the sub-committee that Mrs Kumar’s brother-in-law did not have anything to do with Mrs Kumar’s premises and that the mistakes which had been made were now well in the past.

The sub-committee and objectors were invited to ask questions of Mr Panchal and Mrs Kumar. The sub-committee asked the following questions:

·       When did Mrs Kumar work at the airport in the VAT department?

·       Were the illicit products found on 44 Long Drive in Mrs Kumar’s husband’s van in 2019 owned by Mrs Kumar?

·       Who owned the premises at 44 Long Drive? Was Mrs Kumar’s personal licence intended to be used at 44 Long Drive?

·       Had the illicit products not been found by responsible authorities, would the illicit products have been taken into your husband’s shop?

·       What hours for the sale of alcohol was the applicant applying for on Sundays?

·       Was Mrs Kumar expecting to be competing with her brother-in-law’s shop, given it was so close to her premises? How closely would the two businesses be working together?

·       Was Mrs Kumar’s brother-in-law likely to be attending her shop?

·       What was Mrs Kumar’s understanding of why her application for a premises licence for her store turned down in 2019?

·       Had Mrs Kumar had any difficulties with anti-social behaviour in or around her premises? If so, how often?

In response to the sub-committee’s questions, Mr Panchal and Mrs Kumar provided the following responses:

·       Mrs Kumar worked at the airport in the VAT department from 2014 to 2020, where she became accustomed to working with regulations.

·       Mrs Kumar’s husband owned the premises at 44 Long Drive. Mrs Kumar had applied for a personal licence in order to open her own separate premises.

·       Mrs Kumar explained her understanding of the events which led to responsible authorities finding illicit products in her husband’s van. Mrs Kumar had been inside the premises when her husband was unloading his van. She was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.