Agenda item

Green Acharaike, T/A Xpress World, 248 Brixton Road, London, SW9 6AQ (Vassall)


Presentation by the Licensing Officer

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application to vary a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to sections 5, 6 and 14 and Appendices 1-7, of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraphs 6.2 of the report on pages 106 of the agenda papers.


The Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      This was an application to vary the premises licence.

·      The applicant was seeking to extend its operating hours on Friday and Saturday until 02:00.

·      Representations had been submitted by Licensing. 

·      The application could be found on page 109 to 134 of the agenda papers.

·      The representations could be found on pages 115 to 119. 


Presentation by the applicant

The applicant, Mr Acharaike, informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      He had held the licence since 2016 but had been struggling financially.

·      Some of the financial struggles included loans he had to take and the general upkeep of the business.

·      He also had two children and a family.

·      As the business had been struggling, he decided to apply for an extension of the terminal hour (until 02:00). 

·      There had not been any issues regarding the operation of the premises.

·      He upheld all the licensing objectives and would be happy with any additional conditions the Sub-Committee wished to apply.


In response to questions from Members, Mr Acharaike informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      Intoxicated customers would not be served alcohol.

·      Some patrons to the premises worked late hours and simply came into the premises to buy food and alcohol.

·      He knew some of the patrons personally.

·      Security would be present to stop any suspicious individuals coming into the premises.

·      The business was working well.

·      He would ensure that all the conditions on the licence would be upheld accordingly.

·      He agreed with the conditions put forward on page 117 of the agenda papers.



Presentation by interested parties


Ms Bina Patel, Licensing Manager,informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      She was concerned with the hours proposed by the applicant.

·      The premises was licensed until 23:00.

·      There was street drinking in the area and the applicant had not offered solutions as to how these issues would be addressed.

·      Her written representation was clear.

·      The application should be refused, but she had proposed conditions if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.


In response to questions from Members, Ms Patel informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      She had no correspondence with the applicant since the application had been submitted.

·      If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application then condition 26 could be removed.


The applicant was recalled to address matters arising.In response to questions from Members, MrAcharaike informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      He would not promote street drinking by selling single cans or beers.

·      He would not serve to intoxicated individuals.

·      The business could not be found on any delivery-based app. 

·      The business did not do off sales or make any deliveries.


Adjournment and Decision

At 2.47pm, 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 all those who spoke.

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 refuse the application.

RESOLVED: To refuse the application.

Announcement of Decision

Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to refuse the application. The applicant had asked for hours outside the Council’s recommended policy hours and there was not enough evidence that the applicant would uphold the licensing objectives especially regarding public nuisance and crime and disorder. The applicant had a right to appeal where the applicant could show how he would address concerns.  The applicant was also welcome to speak to the responsible authorities on how to address the issues and to submit a fresh application on the back of those discussions. Full written reasons for this decision would be provided in due course.


Supporting documents: