Minutes:
The Applicant’s representative presented the Applicant’s case. He explained that the application had been made on 1st July 2016 for the premises at 33 Old Sunway, King’s Lynn. The premises was a convenience store, which currently could not sell alcohol. The representative explained that the current tenant of the premises to which the application related was Litexport Ltd which was a wholesale supplier of Eastern European foods. It was denied that Jurij Kravcuk (the husband of the applicant) was the director of this company, as alleged by the Responsible Authorities, and the Applicant’s representative stated that he had documents available to prove it. The representative explained that the director of that company was Ruslan Vasilevskij, who appeared with the applicant at the hearing, and described himself as a friend of Mr Kravcuk.
The Sub-Committee heard that the applicant was a Holder of a personal licence and that she had experience with running similar premises in a different Local Authority area, where she had acted as a supervisor and trained staff.
The representative stated that the current tenant, Mr Vasilevskij, wished to divest himself of the tenancy of the premises and the applicant wished to take over, which was said to not be viable without a premises licence to sell alcohol. It was put forward that the applicant had the knowledge and experience and was familiar with licensing requirements and conditions of a premises licence.
The representative confirmed that the applicant and her husband had separated and denied that this application was designed to circumvent the rejection of the husband’s previous application. Representations were made that the applicant wished to set up a new life and move on from her previous relationship, whilst supporting her children.
The Applicant’s representative explained that the Responsible Authorities objections to the application related to the Applicants relationship with her former partner. However, he stated that none of her partners previous history had anything to do with his client and she had not been asked to be interviewed, or the subject of a police investigation.
The representative submitted that the applicant had no previous bad character and the content of the objections by the Responsible Authorities could not be attributed to the applicant.
The Chairman thanked the Applicant’s representative and invited questions from all parties.
The Environmental Health Manager asked the Applicant to clarify the connection between her former partner and Litexport Ltd, as when he had applied for a licence previously he was listed as the Designated Premises Supervisor. Mr Vasilevskij stated that Mr Kravcuk had never had a position within the company.
Brian Chattern from Norfolk Trading Standards referred to the previous application for a Licence for Baltic Store, which had originally been submitted in Mr Kravcuk’s name and then changed to Litexport Ltd and that Mr Kravcuk had been listed as Manager in previous documentation.
Mr Vasilevskij explained that Mr Kravcuk had helped him in starting up the business as he was a new comer and did not have a personal licence at the time. The intention was to transfer the licence over once everything was in place.
The Police asked questions pertaining to the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Kravcuk and highlighted that the applicant had stated that the relationship had ended in the last two weeks, however, the application for a premises licence was dated in July.
The Police asked how often the Applicant worked at the other shops she had been involved in and the Applicant explained that she managed two premises in Boston and was usually there five days a week.
In response to a question from the Police, the Applicant confirmed that she was still living at the address listed on the application.
The Police referred to infringements of the licences which had happened in connection with the two premises in Boston, including the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to an underage customer and failure to comply with CCTV conditions. The Police asked if the Applicant was aware of the incidents and the applicant stated that she was not running the store at the time, she was involved in training members of staff.
The Police asked further questions of the Applicant regarding the breakdown of her relationship with Mr Kravcuk. The Police commented that if the Applicant wanted to make a fresh start, why she would choose premises which were leased by a good friend of her ex-partner.
The Police asked Mr Vasilevskij if he was still linked to Mr Kravcuk and he explained that they still kept in touch.
Councillor Manning referred to the Applicants involvement in previous premises and how she had stated that she was involved in training staff. Councillor Manning asked if the staff that she had trained where the ones which breached objectives and sold to underage customers. He asked how she would ensure that this would not happen again. The Applicant explained that she would work in the shop five days a week and intended on employing one further lady on a part time basis, and would like her to get her own personal licence.
The Chairman, Councillor Crofts, referred to the application, contained within the Agenda and stated that under Public Safety, the Applicant had put down “training of underage ID check”. The Chairman asked for clarification on what this meant and the Applicant explained that she would train staff to check ID properly.
The Chairman also referred to the mention on the application form of maintaining the premises in good order. The Applicant explained that this would be done by regularly checking the premises herself and ensuring that CCTV and relevant equipment was in place and checked on a regular basis.
The Chairman asked what training the Applicant had received. The Applicant explained that when she applied for a Personal Licence she received some training in London, but could not remember the name of the Company. She stated that she had the relevant paperwork at home if required.