Decision Outcome
That the application by Shukriya Zardary for a premises licence in respect of London International Supermarket, 235-237 Lozells Road, Birmingham B19 1RJ BE REFUSED.
In reaching this decision, the Sub-Committee was mindful of the promotion of the Licensing Objectives in the Act, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder.
The Sub-Committee's reasons for refusing this application for a premises licence followed the submissions made by, and on behalf of, the applicant.
The Sub Committee carefully considered the operating schedule put forward by the applicant, and the likely impact of the application, but were not persuaded that that the applicant was sufficiently experienced to take on responsibility for alcohol licensed premises or to properly promote the licensing objectives.
The applicant accepted that she was inexperienced, but was keen to assure the Sub-Committee that she intended to do her best. However, when Members asked her about her proposals for the operation of the premises, the answers given did not persuade them that either the applicant or her style of management were capable of promoting the licensing objectives. When Members asked her about her business plan for the premises and the motivation behind including alcohol sales as part of her business, for example, the vague answers they received did not reassure them.
Members heard that she had had experience of running a convenience store in recent years, and had been accustomed to handling the sale of age-restricted products at that shop; however the Sub-Committee considered that taking on the responsibility for alcohol sales at an off-licence premises was altogether more onerous, and required considerably more experience than that shown by the applicant.
The Sub-Committee gave consideration to whether any measures could be taken to ensure that the four licensing objectives were adequately promoted and that therefore the licence could be granted. In particular they considered the new proposed Conditions submitted by the applicant’s representative during the hearing. These included a significant shortening of the hours for off-sales. However the Sub-Committee considered that these new Conditions did not address the real issue, which was the lack of experience of the applicant.
The Sub-Committee then heard representations from West Midlands Police about general crime and disorder in the area, but as the shop was currently closed, this could not be attributed in this instance to these premises, and Members did not consider that any particular weight should be attached to this.
Background information was given about the local area, and Members noted that a 10-bed homeless hostel was in the near vicinity – in fact the front door to the homeless hostel was next to the London International Supermarket. Given the lack of experience of the applicant, the Sub-Committee could not feel confident that she would be capable of promoting the licensing objectives in this situation.
The Sub-Committee also heard representations on behalf of another person (a local business owner). The Sub-Committee found these submissions, made via a legal representative, to be unpersuasive from start to finish. The legal representative adopted a misguided approach from the outset by advancing a speculative opinion, insistently and repeatedly, that the applicant was linked to some third party who had mismanaged other premises elsewhere - yet was unable to provide proper evidence to support his accusations.
The applicant and her representative had already explained that there was no link, and in addition West Midlands Police had already addressed the Sub-Committee and not evidenced any link. However despite this the legal representative continued with this speculative and improper theme, in a hectoring manner that was both unfair to the applicant and her adviser, and entirely unhelpful to the Sub-Committee’s decision-making process.
The legal representative also made representations regarding the business documents which the applicant had submitted, and made untoward remarks about the financial details given in the documents. These representations again were irrelevant, and also displayed a lack of fairness; the financial circumstances of a business are not part of the decision-making considerations of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee saw nothing in the business documents which was of relevance to the licensing objectives.
Extraordinarily, the legal representative even saw fit to make unwarranted comments about the applicant’s representative and the remuneration he was receiving for his work. He then chose to repeat these comments later, despite the improper remarks having caused consternation among the committee lawyer and the Chair of the Sub-Committee earlier in the hearing.
There was something of a flavour that the lack of proper evidence, and/or genuine grounds on which to object, had induced the legal representative to act in a manner which was perhaps ill thought out.
All in all, the legal representative’s submissions were overwhelmingly speculative in content. In particular the Sub-Committee looked askance at the legal representative’s own declaration, during his summing up, that he had ‘not presented hard evidence’ – yet he had addressed the hearing at length and had levelled accusations against the applicant and her representative. Given this startling admission, the Sub-Committee felt it wise to disregard the legal adviser’s representations in their entirety; none of his submissions had assisted Members with their decision-making in any way, due to the fact that they were not only wholly irrelevant, but also unfair.
The Sub-Committee has given due consideration to the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the latest Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 by the Secretary of State, the information contained in the application, the written representations received and the submissions made at the hearing by the applicant, their adviser and those making representations.
All parties are reminded that under the provisions contained within Schedule 5 to the Licensing Act 2003, there is the right of appeal against the decision of the Licensing Authority to the Magistrates’ Court, such an appeal to be made within twenty-one days of the date of notification of the decision.