The Lilburne Walk shoppig parade owned by Brent Council
The controversial application LINK for an off-licence at a Brent Council owned shop on St Raphael's Estate came before Brent's Alcohol and Licensing Sub-Committee yesterday. Although residents and community organisations failed to stop it completely, they did win some concessions.
Three in-person objections were made at the meeting, on top of 70 objections from local residents and objections from Sufra Foodbank, An-Nisa Society, St Patrick's Church, Dar Ilm Learning Centre and St Raphs Youth Club. Cllr Abdi Aden also objected,
The default committee position of granting a licence was modified after a strong case was brought:
Sale of alcohol was restricted to 9am to 8pm rather than the 9am-11pm hours that applicant wanted.A proposed beer fridge is to be located with other alcohol and not near the front of the shop as proposedAll alcohol sold must have a shop identification
The licence holder to be responsible for clearing rubbish within 5 metres of the shop front even if it is on public or private land
The licence holder will also be responsible for any botttles or cans found elsehwre on the estate that bear his shop identification
If the above conditions are breached campaigners will be able to apply for a review of te licence that could lead to it being revoked.
Other conditions included no spirit minatures or beers above 6.0%ABV to be stocked or sold and Challenge 25 to be adhered to.
Asif Zamir of St Raphael's Voice said that on balance is was a good outcome but returned to the broader subject of residents' voices in such applications. He told Wembley Matters:
I will continue to push for changes to the council tender process for their own commercial assets. A resident panel must be formed for each ward and have the ability to play an advisory role early on in the process rather that retrospectvely at a planning committee.
Reviews of licenses can be requested if other attempts to improve matters fail via this LINK.
13 comments:
Partial win? Bent Council should know better. What's the chance that the next shop that comes up will be a betting shop of some kind? Bent is a busted flush of a Labour Party that's obsessed with Build Baby Build orchestrated by the Labour YIMBEY group that includes Councillors: Ex-Cabinet member Towerblock Tatler, Planning Chair Matt Kelcher, Cabinet member Neil Nerva, Lesley Smith, Planning member Liz Dixon, Cabinet member Fluer Donnelly-Jackson, Planning member Robert Johnson, Daniel Kennelly, candidates Tina Amadi H &Kensal Green, Tashi Thomas Bronesbury Park. If you add to that lot the members of Butt's family, the future will be terrible for the residents of Bent. Cllr Akram and S Butt are also members of the planning committee. What Butt says goes, and if you don't do as you are told, Towerblock will have you removed!
So, if Labour's right-wing keep control of Bent Council, watch out for a street near you, the tower-blocks are coming, but they are not homes for Brent residents!!!
They could have said NO, as its only a short walk to Monks Park Off Licence or Tesco. .
Yet again, the Council pay no attention to the concerns of Residents, and how their decisions affect them.
Developer-led
People have the right to buy alcohol in this country. Even it’s successful and it will remain open, which mean locals want it. Or it will close. Let’s all be adults about this. The idea a council can say where a beer fridge goes in a shop is a complete waste of taxpayers money
But the Council and Police can dictate to the public as and when they can purchase Alcohol as it happens every event day as all off Licence, supermarkets refuse to sell to fans , zero Tolerance.
Not to mention the 4 other offlicences in close vicinity. One 3 units away, the other 200 metres away
All about community balance and what this likely diverse neighbourhoods needs are in the area of these key local shops.
For example in South Kilburn children's playgrounds (three) are removed by its Developers from existing public green spaces and not as yet replaced? How does that support children's rights to play when housed in car-free/ no garden flats at a more than double the population density in 2001?
Developer-led can and does drift off into creating hostile environments and that is why councillors should re-engage with brownfield zone social issues in Brent.
You think fridge placement is good value of taxpayers money?
Its not all adults housed in the 8 Brent population growths zoned and even in the unlikely event that it was, doubt even then that they would all drink alcohol.
Do you think clearing up drinkers litter and cleaning up urine stains fron our streets, parks and open spaces is a good use of public money???
What about the cost to the National Health Service for medical care for drinkers?...
"Harmful drinking appears to be increasing. The upward trend in alcohol-related death and hospital admissions accelerated in the pandemic.
The costs of this to drinkers, their families and society are significant. Alcohol costs the NHS an estimated £3.5 billion per year in England and costs an estimated £21 billion per year to society.
However, the local authority spend on alcohol services and the number of people going through treatment have decreased since responsibility for public health moved from the NHS to local authorities in 2014."
Alcohol treatment services - Committees - UK Parliament https://share.google/1QttVpXjl0NNDQCrr
Yes, the estate doesn’t really need another off-licence, but the bigger issue is that some of the objections aren’t about the community at all, they’re about imposing his religious views. I’ve seen posts from Asif Zamir saying he hoped the shop could become a nursery tuition centre. Why would a small shop front be suitable for that? The space isn’t big enough for a proper centre, and it’s not about what the community really needs. We already have a nursery on Pitfield Way. I’m not sure how anyone could call the Black Hurt a community centre, it’s a hub that doesn’t serve the whole estate. If he’s so passionate about a tuition centre, why doesn’t he run it in the Black Hurt?
There’s so much rich history on this estate, and the people who live here genuinely care about it. Yet he talks down on the estate online, putting it down as if it’s nothing, and acts like he represents everyone when he clearly doesn’t. That is not a community leader. The estate isn’t one community, it’s made up of different groups and voices, and we shouldn’t let one organisation or person claim to speak for all the people living here. I just hope he doesn’t get his hands on that shop and that it goes to someone who really cares about what they’re delivering. If it’s going to be something for the community, it should represent the whole community, not just a part of it.
Also, who agreed to a pizza shop? I have so many questions about the shop spaces. There was a comment made about the off-licence being a short walk to Monks Park, but the same could be said about the mosque. There’s a mosque in Monks Park, and for some reason we end up with a mosque on the estate. I think the Monks Park mosque is also a tuition centre.
It’s also worth noting that only 70 objections came from local residents. I wonder how many people even knew this was up for debate or were made aware of it, because I didn’t get a notice through my letterbox.
To anyone reading this who attends the mosque, could you please ask the men to stand to one side when they’re having a conversation? It’s really annoying having to walk through them or around them, and no one steps aside. Please also ask the women, when standing by the bridge, if they could stand to one side so I can cross without having to walk through them or squeeze past.
I get your point about the council, but the bigger issue is how the estate is represented. I don’t agree with how Asif Zamir talks about the estate—he often puts it down and acts like he speaks for everyone, when he really only represents part of the community. The estate isn’t one group, it’s made up of different voices, and decisions about shops or services should reflect all residents, not just a few.
We need a way for residents who actually live on the estate to be involved from the start, so decisions aren’t made in an echo chamber and whatever comes next genuinely benefits the whole community, not just those on the outskirts in places like St Raphael’s Way or near the North Circular. The “partial win” with the off-licence shows that residents can push back, but we shouldn’t have to be reactive, we should have a real say from the beginning.
Post a Comment