invited Mr Tahir Awan, Premises Licence
Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor, to address the meeting
in order to answer a legal matter before the application was
considered by the Sub-Committee.
The Legal Adviser to
the Sub-Committee explained to Mr Awan
Mr Awan was present at
the hearing as a result of the Police having obtained a Closure
Order at the Magistrates Court regarding the premises;
The requirement from the Council was that once the
notice had been received, the Sub-Committee was required to make a
decision within 28 days from the day after the notice was received
with today’s meeting being the last day for that to
Regulation 5 of and Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act
2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 require that a review under S167
of the Licensing Act 2003, which applies to this case, must
commence within 10 working days of receiving that notice. This
had not happened in Mr Awan’s
The Legal Adviser preliminarily advised the
Sub-Committee that courts looked to substance rather than form.
Unless Mr Awan could demonstrate that
some serious prejudicial interest would arise by not having
commenced the hearing within the prescribed period the hearing
should proceed. However, if it was
late, for example, on day 29, then that would be a different matter
as the Sub-Committee would then have no power to hear the
The Legal Adviser then proceeded to ask Mr
Awan whether he objected to the
application being heard and whether he wished to address the
Sub-Committee on this point before the Sub-Committee
Mr Awan responded that he had no objections to his
application being heard.
Presentation by Licensing Officer
The Sub-Committee was
informed that this was an application for a review of the current
premises licence. The
Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 9, 10
and 11 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11 and 19 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones
particular relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were
set out in paragraph 5.10 of the report on page 30.
This was an application by the Licensing Authority
to review the licence of Superway
Express, 344 Kennington Lane, London SE11 5HY.
The Metropolitan Police made an application to the
Magistrates Court for a Closure Order.
This was heard before a District Judge on 24 February
2017. It was therefore mandatory that a
review of the premises licence was undertaken.
The premises licence had been revoked by
determination of the Sub-Committee on 18 January
2017. The decision was currently being
appealed by the Premises Licence Holder.
Since the date of revocation, additional incidents
pertaining to the sale of alcohol had prompted the Metropolitan
Police’s request to obtain the Closure Order.
The Closure Order prohibited access to the premises
by all persons between 04:00 and 12:00 hours from 25 February 2017
to 24 May 2017.
The application referenced as Annex A can be found
on pages 39-44 of the agenda papers.
The Metropolitan Police consultation document for
the premises Closure Notice, Annex B could be found on pages 45-48
of the agenda papers.
A copy of the Consent Order could be found from page
49 of the agenda papers.
The handwritten Consent Order agreed on 24 February
2017 could be found as Annex C, on page 55 of the agenda
The Metropolitan Police representation documentation
in support of the Closure Order, Annex D, was on pages 59-85 of the
Further representations from Trading Standards in
support of the review could be found on pages 87-96 of the agenda
A copy of the current premises licence, Annex E was
on pages 97-109 of the agenda papers
The decision notice from the review hearing held on
18 January 2017, Annex F could be found on page 109 of the agenda
A map, plan and
photographs of the premises were circulated.
Presentation by Applicant
Mr Robert Gardner,
Principal Licensing Officer, informed the Sub-Committee
The application was brought by the Licensing
Authority to the Sub-Committee as required by legislation under the
Licensing Act 2003.
The application concerned a Closure Order brought by
the Metropolitan Police before the Magistrates Court on 24 February
2017 but only a partial closure had been agreed.
A letter received by the Council from the
Magistrates Court had triggered the process to bring the review
application before the Sub-Committee for determination in addition
to the decision made by the Magistrates Court.
On hearing the representations to be presented from
the Police and Trading Standards, the Sub-Committee may decide
whether further conditions should be imposed instead of the licence
No complaints had been received since the Closure
Order was imposed.
Previous ongoing issues had been controlled by the
Premises Licence Holder, which Members may wish to consider during
Sergeant David Smith,
Metropolitan Police Licensing Officer, informed the Sub-Committee
Breaches of the licence had been previously examined
by the Sub-Committee at a previous meeting and the decision was
made to revoke the licence and this was now being appealed by the
Premises Licence Holder.
The further alleged incidents had also been examined
by the Magistrates Court and a Closure Order was
The Closure Order imposed restrictions on the sale
of alcohol between 04:00 and 12:00 hours, which appeared
satisfactory as no further complaints had been
He had spoken with local police officers who had
confirmed that issues had improved both in terms of the premises
and the associated anti-social behaviour, which the Metropolitan
Police accepted. However, how this
continued to be achieved was a decision for the
Presentation by Interested Parties
Conmy, Lambeth Trading Standards,
informed the Sub-Committee that:
His representation, from page 87 of the agenda
papers, detailed three individual visits he had undertaken at the
The three visits made were unsatisfactory and
identified alcohol licensing conditions not being adhered to or
On 26 May 2016, a man found on the premises was
identified as an immigration absconder without the right to work in
On 2 November 2016, a man working behind the counter
at the premises admitted to claiming Disability Living
Allowance. Also, no training records
were available and staff could not download CCTV images.
One of the conditions of the licence clearly limited
the amount of some high strength alcohol sold at the
premises. However, despite engaging
with Mr Awan, he continued to stock
those items on the shelves for sale.
Mr Awan clearly knew
that the police had problems regarding the sale of alcohol being
sold to intoxicated individuals made by the premises in the
On 4 March 2017, plastic cups were found behind the
counter of the premises, suggesting that alcohol was being sold
with plastic cups. This encouraged
street drinking and preloading prior to entry into clubs within the
surrounding area. Also, the premises
was still stocking alcohol in excess of 6% abv that was not permitted under Annex 3, condition
6 on the licence.
He appreciated that Mr Awan wanted to run a successful
business. However, Mr Awan continuously ignored advice given to him by
Although the licence had already been revoked and
subject to an appeal, he nevertheless believed that something was
still required to be done by the Sub-Committee.
He was uncertain whether he wanted the licence
revoked as this could result in two appeals being made by the
Premises Licence Holder.
In response to a
question from Members, Sergeant Smith confirmed that the
Metropolitan Police had no intentions of applying to the
Magistrates Court to extend the Consent Order. An extension would be difficult to obtain,
especially as the anti-social issues had improved in the area,
which he believed was the result of the Consent Order currently
being in place.
Presentation by Premises licence holder
Mr Awan, Premises Licence Holder and Designated
Premises Supervisor informed the Sub-Committee that:
Following the court hearing on 24 February 2017, he
had already agreed with Licensing Police that no alcohol would be
sold at the premises from 04:00 -12:00.
At weekdays he closed the premises at 04:00 and
re-opened at 09.00.
At weekends the shop closed at 04:00 and opened at
12:00 the next day.
The Trading Standards Officer explained that no
training records were found at the premises but the records were
available for inspection upon his last visit.
All staff had recently received up-to-date training
and alcohol was no longer being sold to intoxicated
He relied on the business to support his
He accepted that mistakes had been made pertaining
to the premises but felt that his family should not be
Since the Consent Order had been instigated, no
issues had arisen.
In response to
questions from Members, Mr Awan
He accepted that the breaches discussed by Trading
Standards had occurred at the premises since the Consent Order had
He preferred not to sell alcohol in the morning at
the premises. The changes imposed had
improved issues, especially as numerous intoxicated and loud
persons existed in the area.
Adjournment and Decision
At 7.19pm, the
Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal
advisor and clerk to deliberate in private.
The Sub-Committee had
heard and considered representations from Mr Gardner, Sergeant
Smith, Mr Conmy and Mr Awan.
Legal advice was given
to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for
any decision to be proportionate. The
Sub-Committee decided to grant the review and remove Mr
Awan as Designated Premises Supervisor
for the following reasons:
This is an application to review the premises
licence of Superway Express, 344
Kennington Lane, following a Closure Order obtain by the
Metropolitan Police on 24 February 2017. The Closure Order makes restrictions on sale of
alcohol at particular times.
The Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) heard from the
Metropolitan Police although there had been a number of breaches
after the LSC’s decision to revoke the police had not had any
further complaints since the order was made. They were not sure at this stage whether they
would apply to extend the order but they were content with the
current position which included a reduction in complaints of
Mr Conmy from Lambeth
Trading Standards referred to issues which also followed the
revocation such as breach of the condition prohibiting the sale of
beer etc. of over 6% abv.
The LSC heard from Mr Awan he confirmed that he was complying with the
Closure Order and everything was now under control. He accepted the breaches referred to at page 59 of
the report pack. He accepted that the
area had been improved as a result of the restrictions imposed on
The LSC was mindful of its previous decision and if
it were not for that, taking account of the whole history, the LSC
would be revoking the premises licence.
However, the LSC are satisfied that there had been some improvement
but things are far from perfect. Of the
greatest concern are the several breaches occurring after the
decision to revoke, which was a time when a responsible licence
holder would strive to comply with its licensing
conditions. These include the sales to
drunk people after the revocation and the inability to provide the
CCTV and the visit on 4 March 2017 where the premises was still
stocking alcohol in excess of that permitted by Annex 3, condition
6, Mr Conmy’s representation also
referred on page 88, to six cases of such alcohol in the store
The LSC was not satisfied that Mr Awan is or will be a responsible Designated
Premises Supervisor (DPS). It is a
position of responsibility and the evidence before us is that he is
failing in that responsibility. The decision of the LSC was
therefore to remove Mr Awan as the
DPS and pursuant to Section 168(4) of the Licensing Act 2003, this
decision is to take immediate effect.
RESOLVED: To grant the
review and remove Mr Awan as the
Designated Premises Supervisor.
Announcement of Decision
Members returned to
the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to
grant the review and remove Mr Awan as
the Designated Premises Supervisor, and provided reasons for the
decision as outlined above. The
Sub-Committee had considered all the options available to them and
ultimately felt that the applicant met the concerns which had been
raised. The Chair confirmed that
written notification of the decision would be sent in due