Agenda item

AM 2 PM, 122-124 Chippenham Road, London, W9 2AD (Harrow Road Ward/ Not in Cumulative Impact Area) (“The Premises”) 18/06093/LIPV

1.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application, for a premises licence variation in respect of AM 2 PM, 122-124 Chippenham Road, London, W9 2AD.  The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Panchant, representing the Applicant explained to the Sub-Committee that this was a variation to the licence and condition (22).  Mr Panchant advised the Sub-Committee that the premises currently operates as an off-licence and convenience store. Mr Panchant did not want to go through all the details of the previous review but confirmed that in 2014 condition 22 was added to ensure the licence objectives were robustly supported. The Applicant sought to remove condition 22, which specified that the premises licence only had effect if Mr Khalid Javed was the licence holder or a director of the company that holds the premises licence.  . 

Mr Panchant explained to the Sub-Committee that Since 2015 to 2018, Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada continued to work at the premises before she applied to acquire the business on a management basis. She then put an application in to transfer the licence to her name. It was noted that the transfer application had been granted under delegated authority. Mr Panchant advised that all staff had been trained regularly and a training manual had been put in place in accordance to the conditions on the existing licence.  It was recognised that the transferred licence could not be utilised until condition 22 was removed and that is why his client had applied for a minor variation to that effect. That application had been refused and that is why this application was now being made to the Licensing Sub-Committee.

Mr Panchant advised that at the moment there are no licensable activates taking place at the premises, because condition 22 has prevented the sale of any alcohol.  Mr Panchant explained that his client was not seeking the removal of condition 23 as Mr Jihad Albeainy and Mrs Jihad Beaini had no involvement in the current operation of the premises but they had been the reason why the licence had been reviewed and suspended in 2014.  Mr Panchant advised that Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada did understand the four licensing objectives and can outline how she had been operating the premises. 

The Sub-Committee sought to clarify the chronology of the application, querying when Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada started working at the premises and when Mr Javed stopped being involved in the business.  Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada confirmed she started working there in 2015.  Mr Panchant confirmed that the businesses was offered to Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada in December 2017 and then transferred in March 2018.  The Sub-Committee queried when licensing activities ceased. Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada confirmed that licensing activities ceased last month (June 2018) when instructed by the licensing authority.

Mr Panchant advised that his client was seeking the removal of condition 22 so that licensable activities can continue on the premises.  Mr Panchant advised that his client had kept a number of refusal book and incident books which show how robustly Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada had been running the business.  The Sub-Committee made inquiries relating to Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada’s understanding of the licence conditions, as it appeared that she had been trading between March and June 2018 contrary to the terms of the licence.  Mr Panchant advised that when his client was informed by the Licensing Officers about the condition last month, his client then understood and ceased licensable activities.

The Sub Committee then heard from PC Reaz Guerra representing the Metropolitan Police.  PC Guerra advised that the MP would be maintaining its representation to ensure that the new applicant could present themselves and explain how they would fully promote the licensing objectives.  PC Guerra explained that there were previous concerns and hence the 2014 review and felt It was very difficult to prove there was no link between this applicant and the previous premises holders; if the condition was removed.  PC Guerra advised that it appears that the applicant had been there since 2015 and should have been aware of the condition, and at least responsible for understanding the business she was involved in and ensuring that the conditions of the licence were adhered to.   PC Guerra felt that if the applicant can demonstrate that they are not linked to Mr Jihad and can show that they can run the business effectively, then it would be for the Sub-Committee to decide whether to grant.

The Sub-Committee then heard from Sally Fabbricatore representing Environmental Health. Ms Fabbricatore advised the Sub-Committee that EH would be maintaining its representation.  Due to the previous history Ms Fabbricatore felt that this was a matter that needed to come before the Sub-Committee, giving the applicant the opportunity to present any new evidence. However EH still maintained its objections under the crime prevention and the protection of children from harm objectives.

The Sub-Committee then heard from the Licensing Authority represented by Daisy Gadd. The Sub-Committee asked Ms Gadd to clarify the chronology from the LA perspective.  Ms Gadd advised the Sub-Committee that a transfer application was applied for in March 2018, and the license was transferred over to Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada under delegated powers. The Applicant was then instructed to submit a minor variation application to remove condition 22, which was refused. Ms Gadd then explained that the Applicant was advised to submit this full variation application, which then went to the Licensing Authority and was raised at the Westminster Responsible Authority Group. A City inspector then visited the premises and it was at this point that the Applicant was informed to stop trading.

Ms Gadd confirmed that the LA would be maintaining its representation as there was insufficient information provided as to how the Applicant would uphold the licensing objectives if condition 22 was removed.  PC Guerra advised that a previous variation application was submitted by Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada in 2016 which the MP objected to and was then subsequently withdrawn; PC Guerra felt this showed that the applicant was aware of the condition.

The Sub-Committee felt that there needed to be further clarity regarding when Mr Javed stopped being involved in the business and asked Mr Panchant if he could please clarify.  Mr Panchant confirmed discussion happened in December and then in March Mr Javed transferred the business to Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada.  Ms Gadd confirmed that a City inspector visited the premises on 20^th June and advised Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada to cease licensable activities.  The Sub-Committee confirmed that the business was transferred in March and asked the Applicant if they were selling alcohol between March and June.  Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada advised the Sub-Committee that she thought that once the licence was transferred to her name she would be able to sell alcohol; and confirmed that she was selling alcohol between March and June.  Once informed Mrs Ghalwa Bou Diab Abou Saada confirmed that she stopped selling alcohol.

After very careful consideration, the Sub-Committee decided not to remove the condition with the intention of making the licence unusable.  The Sub-Committee felt that the Applicant should have been aware of the conditions of the licence having been employed at the premises since 2015.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that the Applicant had breached the licence between March and June 2018, selling alcohol when Mr Javed was no longer part of the business. She either did this knowingly or did so in ignorance of the actual condition on the licence and that was a significant concern. Condition 22 was imposed on the licence in 2014 when a previous Licensing Sub-Committee had decided not to revoke the licence following allegations that alcohol had been sold to persons under 18 years of age. The condition was imposed because submissions had been made that Mr Javed was capable of effectively promoting the licensing objectives at the premises in place of the previous operators. In theory, there was no reason why the condition could not be removed on the application of a new licence holder but that would be on the assumption that the new licence holder would not sell alcohol until the condition had been removed. It was not good enough for the applicant to only do that on the advice of the licensing authority. She should have known about the condition and appreciated the implication of selling alcohol before the condition had been removed. The Licensing Sub-Committee did not have any confidence in the applicant. It did not have the option of being able to revoke the licence but a refusal of the application would effectively achieve the same purpose.