Agenda item

Application For A Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permit - Hollywood Bowl And Puttstars, Unit 220, The Chimes (Upper Mall), Uxbridge, UB81QJ




Jhini Mukherjee, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a Licensed Premises Gaming Machines Permit for 5 Category C and 35 Category D Gaming Machines in respect of Hollywood Bowl and Puttstars Unit 220, The Chimes (upper mall), Uxbridge UB8 1QJ.



It was noted that the London Borough of Hillingdon’s Statement of Gambling Policy required a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to be held for more than 5 gaming machines. The premises had the benefit of a premises licence for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and the provision of late-night refreshment.


The Sub-Committee was informed that the premises would be used as a multi-functional entertainment/bowling complex, bar, mini golf course and had an arcade area. Permit holders were required to comply with the gaming machine permits. The applicant had submitted additional documents relating to the brands they held, history of the company, different machines used with explanatory diagrams and various procedures and policies. There was also information on age verification procedures to prevent the underage use of machines.


The Applicant


Representatives from The Original Bowling Company Limited (TOBC) - Darryl Lewis – Chief Operating Officer/Tony Stone – Head of Amusements and the Applicant’s representative Matthew Phipps – TLT addressed the Committee. 


By way of background, this was an application by Hollywood Bowls and Puttstars who operate nationally on an identical template on what had been proposed. Uxbridge had been identified as a town that had the demographics of those who used this type of entertainment facility elsewhere in the country. It was submitted that this was an opportunity to rejuvenate dead space which would most likely open in early 2025.


It was highlighted that in order for a licensed premises gaming machine permit to be granted, the licensing objectives had to be satisfied. 


The Committee was provided an overview of the bundle of documents which included a written submission, background on the company, information on game age verification policies, audit processes, photographs of the machine and images of some of the notice materials. It was submitted that the Licensing Sub-Committee should grant the application for a licensed premises gaming machine permit to The Original Bowling Company Limited as it was an experienced operator, the sites were supported by trained staff, the application was in line with similar applications across the country and there were no objections to the application.




During the meeting, Members, the Licensing Officer and the Applicant discussed the following points:


  • Further clarification was sought on the location of the bar on site and this was demonstrated on the plan for Members.
  • Although the General Manager and team had not been appointed for the site yet, TOBC was responsible for amusements throughout the space overall.
  • TOBC would continue its contract with Blueprint Gaming Machines and all machines would have age verification facilities.
  • The team worked alongside the age verification mechanisms in place so if there were any issues the team would be able to pick this up and issue a call log. The age verification was tested on a daily basis.
  • TOBC maintained a Games Academy which the Centre Manager was a part of. No one was allowed to physically work until training had been undertaken and there was a pass rate of 95%. The training was refreshed every year and staff were required to undertake this.
  • There was a Top Talent Programme where 43 managerial vacancies had come from within the business. The Centre Manager was also bonused on ensuring that team members had 1-2-1s every month and training was up to date.
  • Testing of the machines was done externally in addition to internal audits. Regional support managers also conducted quarterly checks equipment and team training.
  • TOBC operated an exclusion policy for those who regularly used the machine and there were concerns.
  • To manage security and safety, staff were located across the floor and would be available to assist and support.
  • Some concerns were raised regarding the overconsumption of alcohol. The overarching observation was that this was the sale of alcohol was ancillary to the business, this was an entertainment venue and although alcohol was served drinks (soft drinks, coffee and alcohol) amounted to 17% of the revenue whereas bowling amounted to 47/48% of the revenue.


Closing remarks


In closing submissions, the Applicant’s representative noted that the premises licence had been granted for this site. It was submitted that this was a good application that had been tried and tested.


There were no further submissions from the Licensing Officer. 


Committee Deliberation


All parties were asked to leave the room while the Sub-Committee considered its decision.


All parties were invited back to the meeting for the Chairman to announce the decision of the Sub-Committee.


The Decision


The Sub-Committee considered all relevant evidence made available to it and in doing so took the following into account:


  • Licensing Objectives, Gambling Act 2005

·         Licensing Objectives, Licensing Act 2003

·         Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of the Licensing Act 2003

·         The guidance issued by the Gambling Commission under section 25 of the Gambling Act 2005

·         Hillingdon's Licensing Policy


The decision of the Sub-Committee is to GRANT the application for Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permit.


Having considered all of the evidence and oral representations, the Sub-Committee concluded that the application should be granted for the number of machines requested in the application.




The applicant for or holder of a permit may appeal the Council’s decision to the Justices Clerk at the Uxbridge Magistrates Court.  Such an appeal may be brought within 21 days of receipt of this Notice of Decision.


On an appeal the magistrates' court may:


a)    dismiss the appeal;

b)    substitute for the decision appealed against any decision that the licensing authority could have made (with effect from such date and on such transitional or other terms as the court may specify);

c)    restore a permit (with effect from such date and on such transitional or other terms as the court may specify);

d)    remit the case to the licensing authority to decide in accordance with a direction of the court;

e)    make an order about costs.


The Sub-Committee advises as a comfort to residents and a warning to the permit holder that the licence may be reviewed under the Premises Licence should there be a breach of the gambling regulations or the premises becomes managed in a manner which does not uphold the licensing objectives.


The Applicant will be deemed to have received this decision letter, two days after the date on the accompanying letter, which will be posted by 1st class mail.


Supporting documents: