Agenda item
Application by Local Food Express to vary the designated premises supervisor for 'Local Food Express' (16 Park Parade, London, NW10 4JH) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003
Decision:
that the application by Local Food Express to vary the designated supervisor for 'Local Food Express' (16 Park Parade, London, NW10 4JH) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be refused.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that as the proposed designated premises supervisor (DPS) lived in Leeds, it would significantly affect his ability to perform this role at his premises in London. The sub-committee also heard evidence from the applicant that inferred that he had been acting outside the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, namely that the premises had been operating without either a DPS or a personal licence holder giving rise to potential breaches of the premises licence. Members of the Sub-committee were not entirely convinced that the applicant was able to manage the premises effectively and thus promote the licensing objectives (Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, Prevention of Public Nuisance, Protection of Children from Harm). It was noted that the applicant had committed a relevant offence in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder objective and accordingly this was regarded to be of material consideration as part of the Committees decision making process when determining the application. The sub-committee further considered that the granting of the application would undermine the licensing objective linked to the prevention of crime and disorder. In view of the above reasons, the sub-committee accordingly refused the application.
The sub-committee added an informative advising that the applicant seek the appropriate professional advice in progressing this application.
Minutes:
Relevant authority making a representation
Sergeant Adrian Adolphus (Brent Police)
Applicant
MujahidYousefzai (the applicant)
Yogini Patel (Senior Regulatory Service Manager, Environment and Protection Unit, Environment and Neighbourhood Services) introduced the matter and set out the applicant’s request as set out in the report.
Relevant authority making a representation
Sergeant Adrian Adolphus (Brent Police) stated that there was a relevant conviction with regard to the applicant. He indicated that he had a copy of the relevant conviction and with the agreement of the applicant, this was circulated to the sub-committee. Sergeant Adrian Adolphus asserted that the applicant agreed that he was guilty of the conviction which related to a drink driving incident around two years ago and that this would remain unspent for a further three years.
Sergeant Adrian Adolphus continued that the premises was located in a busy area close to some public houses, one of which has required police attention. In addition, there were also a number of street drinking related incidences in the area. The sub-committee heard that the proposed designated premises supervisor (DPS), Mujahid Yousefzai, lived in Leeds, which Sergeant Adrian Adolphus believed made it very difficult for the premises to operate to the standards required by the council’s licensing objectives. According to checks undertaken by police, Mujahid Yousefzai had operated two off licence premises in Leeds, one of which he remained the DPS for, according to Leeds City Council.
Upon receiving a copy of the application in August 2011, Sergeant Adrian Adolphus requested that a personal licence holder be present on the premises, particularly on later hours in the evening. He also suggested that the applicant suggest an alternative DPS for the premises.
In reply to queries from Members, Sergeant Adrian Adolphus explained that a personal licence holder fluent in English should be present on the premises.
Upon responses provided by the applicant, Sergeant Adrian Adolphus indicated that he would advise Leeds City Council accordingly with regard to the applicant’s involvement of the off licence premises in Leeds mentioned above.
Case for the applicant
MujahidYousefzai (the applicant) asserted that he had sold his off licence businesses in Leeds and had secured 16 Park Parade in London as a suitable premises in London. His family remained in Leeds and he continued to live in Leeds too. Mujahid Yousefzai confirmed that he had received a conviction for drink driving and stated that he had since stopped drinking alcohol. He agreed that he needed to transfer his DPS licence in Leeds and stated that he would provide staff with the appropriate training.
In reply to queries from Members, Mujahid Yousefzai stated that he was not intending to move his family to London as he would not be able to afford to. In addition, he felt that he could not afford to employ a DPS for the premises at 16 Park Parade. He claimed that he was still awaiting a new premises licence for 16 Park Parade and was in the process of transferring his DPS and premises licence in Leeds. He acknowledged that any other staff needed to be trained to acquire a personal licence.
In answer to queries from Sergeant Adrian Adolphus, Mujahid Yousefzai stated that he had ceased working at 128 Roundhay Road in Leeds on May 2011 and that he was working at 16 Park Parade from 08:00 to 16:00 seven days a week, although he had not worked there in the last two weeks due to illness. Another member of staff worked there part time but did not hold a personal licence. Mujahid Yousefzai acknowledged that he was not aware that the shop at 16 Park Parade could not trade without a personal licence holder present.
Decision
At this point, the applicant and the responsible authority were asked to leave the room to allow the Sub-Committee to discuss the relevant issues of the application in closed session.
That the application by Local Food Express to vary the designated supervisor for 'Local Food Express' (16 Park Parade, London, NW10 4JH) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be refused.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that as the proposed designated premises supervisor (DPS) lived in Leeds, it would significantly affect his ability to perform this role at his premises in London. The sub-committee also heard evidence from the applicant that inferred that he had been acting outside the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, namely that the premises had been operating without either a DPS or a personal licence holder giving rise to potential breaches of the premises licence. Members of the Sub-committee were not entirely convinced that the applicant was able to manage the premises effectively and thus promote the licensing objectives (Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, Prevention of Public Nuisance, Protection of Children from Harm). It was noted that the applicant had committed a relevant offence in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder objective and accordingly this was regarded to be of material consideration as part of the Committees decision making process when determining the application. The sub-committee further considered that the granting of the application would undermine the licensing objective linked to the prevention of crime and disorder. In view of the above reasons, the sub-committee accordingly refused the application.
The sub-committee added an informative advising that the applicant seek the appropriate professional advice in progressing this application.