Printed decisions PDF 66 KB - Meetings, agendas, and minutes

DECISION SHEET
LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW
Licensing Panel - Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Contact: Bill Lee on 020 8583 2068 or email at [email protected]
ITEM
SUBJECT
DECISION
1.
Appointment of Chair
Cllr Shantanu Rajawat was appointed Chair.
2.
Marmaris Restaurant & Bar,
Unit GC-01 Ferry Quays,
Ferry Lane, Brentford
Please see the report of the Licensing officer (agenda item 2)
The applicant, Mr Ahmet Nas, attended the hearing accompanied by Mr Keith Springer and a third
gentleman. Mr Springer advised that they were in the process of forming a company to manage the
restaurant but confirmed that Mr Nas was currently running the business as a sole trader. Philip Bownds
of Hounslow’s Pollution Control Team attended in support of a representation against the application as
did six interested parties.
Nigel Farmer, Head of Business Regulations, presented the report. Mr Nas stated that due to his lack of
experience he had sought advice from another restaurant owner when he completed the application form
but had nonetheless misunderstood several areas which he now wished to amend. Simon Jones, legal
adviser to the Panel, asked him to confirm that he wished to vary the application and Mr Nas affirmed that
he did. He advised that he did not need the Late Night Refreshment Licence as the restaurant would
close at 11 pm Sunday to Thursday and 11.30pm Friday and Saturday, and he did not require a licence to
sell alcohol for consumption off the premises as he intended to only serve alcohol on the premises with
food.
Mr Jones advised that the applicant could be permitted to submit an amended application immediately. It
was the Panel’s view that major changes under the circumstances would be confusing and that further
errors could be incorporated. The Chair decided to grant an adjournment of the hearing to enable the
applicant to submit a considered revision of his application. It was confirmed that there was no need to
readvertise.
Mr Nas was reminded that no licensable activities could take place on the premises until such time as a
licence may be granted. No licence had been held since 2008. When asked to confirm that no licensable
activities were currently undertaken at the restaurant Mr Nas stated that there was no dancing. Mr Jones
advised that he was not permitted to sell alcohol or play live or recorded music without the appropriate
licence.
Resolved:
That the hearing of the application for a Premises Licence for Marmaris Restaurant & Bar, Unit GC-01
Ferry Quays, Ferry Lane, Brentford shall be adjourned until 9 October 2012.
3.
Shell, Gillette Corner, 882
Great West Road, Isleworth.
Please see the report of the Licensing Officer (agenda item 3)
The applicant was represented by Mr Leo Charalambides, Barrister, Mr Corrigan Lockett, Licensing
Consultant, Mr Sanjiv Kular, retailer and Mr Manga Rao Paturi, proposed DPS.
This item was heard after the Shell Sunbury application (agenda item 4), where an adjournment had been
granted to allow more information to be gathered. Mr Charalambides asked for an adjournment for this
application for the same reason, which was granted by the Panel.
The Panel’s view was that the applicant had failed to supply the information necessary for them to make
an informed decision as to the primary use of the premises. Simon Jones advised the Panel that they
could grant the requested adjournment if they felt that they needed more information. Mr Jones advised
members that they needed to be satisfied that they had all the necessary information they needed to
decide on primary use of the site.
Having fully considered the written and oral representations from the applicant, questioned the applicant’s
barrister and Licensing Consultant and considered legal advice, the Panel decided to adjourn the hearing
until 23 October to obtain further information.
Resolved:
That the hearing of this application shall be adjourned until 23 October 2012 to allow the applicant time to
obtain and submit the following information pertaining to a period of the Financial Year 2011/ 2012, plus
as much data as may be obtained from the current Financial Year from April 2012:
•
•
•
Properly Analysed Financial Turnover figures shall be included to show the gross value of fuel
sales, minus VAT and Fuel Duty and gross figures for non-garage sales from April 2011 until the
most recent date that figures are available.
A complete breakdown of what the applicant classes as non-garage sales. This is to include car
wash and ATM if such facilities are available at the site.
If an ATM is present then figures pertaining to number of customers using the ATM to be obtained
from the ATM operating company.
The applicant was also requested to provide the following data from a one month (4 week) period:
•
•
•
•
The number of customers who drive or ride motor vehicles onto the site and purchase fuel for the
vehicle only;
The number of customers who drive or ride motor vehicles onto the site and purchase fuel for the
vehicle and also purchase non-garage goods;
The number of customers who drive or ride motor vehicles onto the site and purchase non-garage
goods only; and
The number of customers who access the premises on foot and make any purchase.
The applicant was requested to provide the information in a consistent manner to enable the Panel to
assess the data properly, instead of for example providing figures for fuel sales in litres and non-garage
sales in pounds sterling. Figures were requested in preference to charts and graphs.
The Panel acknowledged that it may be necessary to grant a further adjournment to enable the applicant
to provide the requested data. The applicant was advised to inform the Licensing Department in the event
of any difficulties in gathering the information.
4.
Shell Sunbury, 74 Country
Way, (A316 Westbound)
Hanworth
Please see the report of the Licensing Officer (agenda item 4)
This item was heard second, before the Shell Gillette Corner application.
The applicant was represented by Mr Leo Charalambides, Barrister, Mr Corrigan Lockett, Licensing
Consultant and Mr Arasaratnam Aravinthan, proposed DPS.
Simon Jones, legal adviser to the Panel, stated that the application had previously been part-heard, on 26
June 2012 and had been adjourned to enable the applicant to present the following information at the
Panel’s request, pertaining to a period of four consecutive weeks (28 days):
•
The number of customers who drive or ride motor vehicles onto the site and purchase fuel for the
•
•
•
vehicle only;
The number of customers who drive or ride motor vehicles onto the site and purchase fuel for the
vehicle and also purchase non-garage goods;
The number of customers who drive or ride motor vehicles onto the site and purchase non-garage
goods only; and
The number of customers who access the premises on foot and make any purchase.
Leo Charalambides referred to the letter submitted to the panel from Robert Doyle, (Statement from Shell
re data collection). He advised that the analysis was based on the company’s EPOS system and
acknowledged that it did not meet the Panel’s request for the above information. He stated that the
company would have had to hire a market research company to obtain the necessary data and had
decided against that course of action on grounds of cost.
The Panel’s view was that the applicant had failed to supply the requested information necessary for them
to make an informed decision as to the primary use of the premises. Mr Charalambides requested a
further adjournment to enable the data to be gathered and supplied. Simon Jones advised the Panel that
the applicant had been given the opportunity to provide the information; however if they felt that they had
sufficient information then they could refuse the adjournment and decide the application without the
additional information. Alternatively, he advised that they could decide to grant the requested adjournment
to give the applicant another opportunity to provide the information and that, if they were to do so, they
could also ask for further information in addition to that already requested. They could also ask for the
information to be presented differently, in a more consistent way. Mr Jones advised members that they
needed to be satisfied that they had all the necessary information they needed to decide on primary use
of the site. He gave the Panel advice regarding the cases of Green v Inner London Licensing Justices
(1994) in which guidance had been given that figures for financial turnover must be properly analysed and
net of duty and VAT; and that of R v Liverpool Crown Court ex parte Goodwin (1998) in which it had been
suggested that the issue for the purposes of determining primary use was the intensity of use by
customers at the premises, to which end customer lists might be highly material. Leo Charalambides
advised that there was no definitive approach and that it was for the Panel to decide how best to consider
the matter and Mr Jones agreed.
Having fully considered the written and oral representations from the applicant, questioned the applicant’s
barrister and Licensing Consultant and considered legal advice, the Panel decided to adjourn the hearing
until 23 October to obtain further information.
Resolved:
That the hearing of this application shall be adjourned until 23 October 2012 to allow the applicant time to
obtain and submit the following information pertaining to a period of the Financial Year 2011/ 2012, plus
as much data as may be obtained from the current Financial Year from April 2012:
•
•
•
•
Table Two (Properly Analysed Financial Turnover) shall be amended to include the gross value of
fuel sales, minus VAT and Fuel Duty, in addition to columns already provided, from April 2011 until
the most recent date that figures are available.
A complete breakdown of what the applicant classes as non-garage sales.
Figures pertaining to number of customers using the ATM to be obtained from the ATM operating
company.
Documented permission to use the pedestrian access gate.
Leo Charalambides challenged the inclusion of the last request as a planning matter and therefore
irrelevant to the licensing decision. The Panel maintained that pedestrian footfall should not be counted if
those customers gained access to the premises using an entrance that the establishment’s planning
permission required to be kept locked; therefore they deemed that permission to open the gate was
relevant.
The applicant was also requested to provide the customer data regarding fuel and non-fuel purchase
along with numbers of customers accessing the site by vehicle and on foot from a one month (4 week)
period referred to above, as asked for at the original hearing on 26 June 2012.
The applicant was requested to provide the information in a consistent manner to enable the Panel to
assess the data properly, instead of for example providing figures for fuel sales in litres and non-garage
sales in pounds sterling. Figures were requested in preference to charts and graphs.
The Panel acknowledged that it may be necessary to grant a further adjournment to enable the applicant
to provide the requested data. The applicant was advised to inform the Licensing Department in the event
of any difficulties in gathering the information.