The Sub-Committee is asked to determine Momo Station’s application, taking into account the details in the report and any representations made at this Sub-Committee meeting.

 

Devraj Dhakal, the applicant, and the Prakash Sharma, the designated supervisor of the premises, joined the meeting.

 

Alex Bloomfield, Licensing Officer for Thames Valley Police, joined the meeting.

 

The Chair welcomed all attendees. The Sub-Committee and officers introduced themselves.

 

The Chair outlined the procedure for the hearing.

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer presented the case to the Sub-Committee, noting the requirement for members to determine an application submitted by Devraj Dhakal for a New Premises Licence in respect of Momo Station, 260 Cowley Road, Oxford.

 

The Sub-Committee heard the details of the application as follows:

 

Supply of Alcohol (On and Off Sales) and Recorded Music (Indoors only):

• Monday to Saturday 12:00 hours to 01:00 hours
• Sunday 12:00 hours to 00:00 hours (midnight)

 

Late Night Refreshment:

• Monday to Saturday 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours
• Sunday 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours (midnight)

 

The Sub-Committee understood that a copy of the application could be found in appendix one, and details of an existing premises licence for the venue held by Miss Esmeralda Cenga for late night refreshment was enclosed in appendix two. 

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer explained that the application had attracted a representation from Thames Valley Police on the grounds of crime and disorder and public safety, as enclosed in appendix three. Thames Valley Police had attempted to liaise with the applicant but did not receive a response.

 

A map detailing the applicant’s premises and the surrounding area was enclosed in appendix four. 

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the premises is within the City Centre Special Saturation Policy area, however this is no longer in place as of April 2025 and is currently being reviewed with a cumulative impact assessment as required under Section 55A of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

Finally, the Sub-Committee were reminded of its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act to consider the fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the rights of local residents, and to ensure that any decision taken is necessary and proportionate to the objectives being pursued. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer emphasised that any decision taken must promote the licensing objectives and provided procedural advice regarding the Sub-Committee’s considerations. 

 

The Sub-Committee were advised to reach a decision from the follow options, with the understanding that a granted licence could be subject to different conditions for different parts of the premises or the different licensable activities.

 

a)    Grant the licence in accordance with the application.

b)    Modify the conditions of the operating schedule by altering or omitting or adding to them.

c)    Exclude or restrict from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities to which the application relates.

d)    Reject the whole of the application.

 

The Chair invited the Sub-Committee to ask any questions.

 

Councillor Ottino requested details on the opening hours of nearby premises selling alcohol to which the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer noted several examples licensed to sell alcohol until midnight, including Kazbar.

 

Councillor Ottino also queried the conditions of the existing premises licence in the name of Miss Esmeralda Cenga, and whether this could be transferred to a new owner. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer explained that the existing licence would stay in force unless surrendered, suspended, the company closes, or the owner passes away. Councillor Jupp asked whether it could be transferred; the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer clarified that it could and emphasised that the application brought to the meeting is for an entirely new licence.

 

The Chair invited the applicant to present to the Sub-Committee.

 

Mr. Sharma informed the Sub-Committee that he would be speaking on behalf of Mr. Dhakal. Mr. Sharma noted his belief that every bar on the same street closes at midnight, therefore explaining that their application for one additional hour of trading is purely to support the success of their business. The Sub-Committee were informed that they would adhere to all the licensing guidelines relating to the sale of alcohol and food, and if required, would be content to settle with a midnight closure restriction. Mr. Sharma explained his view that Mr. Dhakal deserves the licence as he had adequately filled in all applications and relevant paperwork; he would be very grateful for the licence. 

 

The Chair invited questions from the Sub-Committee.

 

Councillor Jupp queried the applicant’s previous experience in managing this type of business. Mr. Sharma explained that he has managed other pubs since 2008 which have been successful, are still operating, and have never breached any licensing conditions. He expressed a desire to provide high quality hospitality.

 

Councillor Ottino asked whether the applicant had read the suggestions from Thames Valley Police on page 48 of the report. Mr. Sharma stated that he had not, due to being on holiday, but assured the Sub-Committee he would follow any requested guidelines.

 

The Sub-Committee paused for several minutes to allow time for the applicant and Mr. Sharma to read the relevant pages of the report which set out the suggested conditions from Thames valley Police.

 

Mr. Sharma confirmed that they would be willing to follow the suggested conditions set out by Thames Valley Police. The Chair thanked Mr. Sharma.

 

Councillor Jupp asked how work is delegated between staff on the premises and how this is managed alongside the other business Mr. Sharma had said he was managing within Oxford. Mr. Sharma explained that the other businesses are run by managers and supervisors whilst he currently dedicates time to supporting this new business. Councillor Jupp queried how long before he would return to the other businesses to which it was stated around six months. 

 

Councillor Ottino asked how the staff would ensure alcohol is not served to anyone already intoxicated. Mr. Sharma explained that they are familiar with identifying the physical signs of intoxication.

 

Councillor Ottino referred to the diagram within the report that showed the premises to contain 9 tables for customers and asked whether table service and queuing are permitted. Mr. Sharma clarified that only table service occurs within the premises as take-aways are managed by delivery couriers who wait outside. Councillor Ottino expressed concern about the possibility of customers exiting local bars and clubs and entering this premises and causing issues. Mr. Sharma assured the Sub-Committee that they do not allow this. Councillor Ottino asked whether they have a safety and capacity limit to which Mr. Sharma noted that only 32 people are allowed to sit within the premises at any one time, and assured members that they do not exceed this.

 

Councillor Jupp asked what role the applicant plays in the operation of the business to which Mr. Sharma confirmed he is the chef and supports kitchen preparations.  

 

The Chair asked what type of music is played within the premises. Mr. Sharma explained that it is usual restaurant background music, and not any genre such as hip hop which could encourage dancing. He said it was mostly Nepalese folk music and similar.

 

The Chair asked if they offer training to staff, and what experience the applicant has of training people to legally serve alcohol. Mr. Sharma noted the Challenge 25 policy and explained that he asks for ID and assesses whether customers are already intoxicated. Furthermore, they only serve limited alcohol options with food. The Sub-Committee were informed that all staff would be trained to ensure that no unfit person would be sold alcohol.

 

The Chair asked how CCTV is managed to which Mr. Sharma noted that it is recorded for 72 hours in a cycle to enable the police to access recordings of any incidents. The Chair enquired how often they check the CCTV to ensure it is working accurately. Mr. Sharma assured members it is checked daily.

 

Councillor Jupp sought to clarify that the CCTV looped every 72 hours and questioned whether this should comply with requirements for 31 days. The Licensing Officer (TVP) confirmed that it should be recorded for 31 days; Mr. Sharma acknowledged this. Councillor Jupp asked how many of the cameras face the outside and the inside of the premises to which Mr. Sharma noted that there is one inside and none outside. 

Councillor Jupp asked Mr. Sharma what type of customer they expect to attract to which the Sub-Committee heard that usually only people who like food with a small amount of alcohol, and not those seeking to attend a bar or nightclub. Councillor Jupp queried whether the types of customers vary between day and night to which Mr. Sharma noted that it does not as they serve the same type of customers at all times, for example young professionals and the elderly.

 

Councillor Ottino asked what they consider to be a ‘substantial meal’, as referenced in the report. Mr. Sharma provided some examples including samosas. Councillor Ottino expressed concern over the minimal amount of food that could be sold to permit the sale of alcohol and Mr. Sharma attempted to reassure the Sub-Committee that they do not promote themselves as a night club business; instead, they are a restaurant business focused on street food.

 

The Chair clarified the items on the premise’s alcohol menu with Mr. Sharma explaining that there will be limited items only.

 

Councillor Jupp asked how, without security staff, will they handle intoxicated persons demanding to be served alcohol. Mr. Sharma assured the Sub-Committee that they would not be served, and rules would be adhered to regardless of customer pressure or behaviour. Councillor Jupp asked specifically how this would be achieved in practice. Mr. Sharma noted that he has never experienced a similar scenario and would refuse to serve all together if that happened.

 

Councillor Ottino expressed concern about potential customers who may act in a challenging manner and see the restaurant as an easy opportunity to purchase more alcohol. On this basis, it was again asked how this would be managed, especially given the lively context of Cowley Road. Mr. Sharma acknowledged the nature of the area and noted that they would not play music which could encourage disorderly behaviour and would not serve aggressive customers.

 

The Chair enquired as to what checks and balances are in place to ensure that alcohol is not sold to underage persons via takeaway delivery services. Mr. Sharma explained that the delivery driver is required to check the ID of the customer if the order contains alcohol and refuse the delivery if this cannot be done. He also clarified that this is entered onto a records system.

 

Councillor Jupp asked why the application requests permissions to supply alcohol on and off the premises to which Mr. Sharma explained that this is to allow for takeaway delivery services.

Councillor Ottino noted that customers could still buy alcohol from the premises and take in to drink elsewhere in public spaces. He asked whether they would sell alcohol for this purpose to which Mr. Sharma noted that he would have no way of determining whether this would be the customer’s intention.

 

The Legal Advisor sought to clarify that the maximum capacity of the premises is 32 customers on the basis of four persons per table; Mr. Sharma confirmed this. The Legal Advisor also asked how many members of staff would be on shift each evening and Mr. Sharma noted four, including two kitchen staff and two front of house staff.

 

The Chair invited the Licensing Officer (TVP) to present.

 

The Licensing Officer (TVP) expressed regret that that application had required a Sub-Committee hearing, noting that it is important for members to consider what the applicant is applying for and whether the application reflects this. As such, long term thought is important to ensure that the applicant is tied to the necessary conditions of a sensible and appropriate licence once granted on an indefinite basis. The Sub-Committee heard that the applicant has only briefly touched on some of the necessary conditions within the application form and TVP and licensing officers would have preferred to see more detail. The Licensing Officer (TVP) noted previous issues with broad applications noting only serving alcohol with food and the resultant issues of this later down the line. The Sub-Committee heard of previous examples in which broad licence conditions have led to problematic events. The Licensing Officer (TVP) noted the previous experience of the applicant and the presence of other connected successful businesses, however explained that the Cowley Road area is busier and attracts more nighttime economy activities which lends any business in this area to more crime and disorder. The lack of door security staff was noted as a considerable concern. The Licensing Officer (TVP) summarised by emphasising the importance of focusing on the conditions of the licence to ensure that proper understanding between the police and applicant; response to previous emails would have supported this. Several examples of recommended conditions were listed including extended CCTV recording loops and door staff for security.

The Chair asked the Licensing Officer (TVP) what the time the police would prefer the sale of alcohol to be limited to. The Sub-Committee heard that TVP recognises that the public wish to have the option of premises to eat and drink at late hours, although multiple surrounding venues already offer this on Cowley Road. It was recommended that a restriction to midnight may be more appropriate to support the reduction of crime and disorder. The Chair asked whether the Special Saturation Policy, should it be in place, would impact this to which the Licensing Officer (TVP) confirmed it would not.

 

Councillor Ottino noted his understanding that the existing licence already allows food to be served until late and therefore questioned whether food sales could continue past the time of alcohol sales ending. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer explained that the conditions of the existing licence are set by a previous application which would have no bearing on this one.

 

Councillor Ottino asked the Licensing Officer (TVP) how the concept of a ‘substantial meal’ could be enforced to which it was explained that there is no legal definition, and officers are required to take a common-sense approach during enforcement action. The Legal Advisor also noted that each set of circumstances would need to be considered individually with consideration of the quantity of alcohol sold and the type of restaurant; the term ‘substantial’ would be contextually relative and enforcement would have to be conducted with discretion. 

 

The Legal Advisor asked the Licensing Officer (TVP) whether any other local business have held a licence until 1AM and caused issues to which none were noted.

 

The Chair noted the need to consider the potential future use of the premises for events and therefore asked the responsible authorities what useful restrictions could be put on the licence to safeguard against future issues. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer explained that as Environmental Health had raised no objections to this application in relation to noise, it would be hard to impose restrictions to this end.

 

Councillor Ottino questioned what other purposes the premises could be used for. The Licensing Officer (TVP) noted that a small space, like other local bars, could generate crime and disorder. Examples on Cowley Road were provided to the Sub-Committee.

 

Councillor Ottino sought clarity on what part of the premises the Sub-Committee were required to reach a decision on, to which the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer noted the sections marked in red on the floor plan within the report.

 

The Legal Advisor asked Mr. Sharma, if the new licence is granted, what would happen to the other existing licence to which it was noted that they only wish to serve alcohol, and the other licence is only for food. The Legal Advisor therefore asked how they would manage food and drink sales to which it was clarified that they are currently choosing to close earlier than licensing hours for late night refreshments.

 

The Chair thanked all attendees and officers.

 

The Chair invited the applicant to make any final comments; none were made.

 

The Chair invited final comments from the officers; none were made.

 

Mr. Dhakal, Mr. Sharma, the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer, and the Licensing Officer (TVP) left the meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate.

 

The Sub-Committee considered:

• That the Saturation Policy is not currently in place, but that the Sub-Committee could use their discretion to still consider the principles of cumulative impact in the area and if the operating schedule were sufficient to mitigate any additional impact from this premises.
• That food sales could continue beyond the opening times of this licence which only dictates the sale of alcohol.
• That there was some concern of whether Mr. Dhakal and Mr. Sharma fully understood the licence conditions from TVP and requirement to adhere to them. Mr. Sharma referred to them as guidelines.
• That the Sub-Committee were not convinced that Mr. Dhakal and Mr. Sharma had a sufficiently thorough understanding of the characteristics of the area surrounding the premises and had not implemented appropriate measures to manage their context, such as employing door staff.
• That the licence, if granted, should have all the conditions from TVP, and noted in the report, attached to it.
• That any conditions imposed in relation to security and large groups must be proportional
• That it could be recommended to restrict the sale of alcohol to different times for on sales and off sales.
• That the Sub-committee were content for the business to operate as a small food business with music and limited alcohol with food, however, were concerned about the risks to crime and disorder should the quantity and availability of alcohol not be tightly managed. Possible limitations to the sale of alcohol via take away services was also noted.

 

Mr. Sharma, the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer, and the Licensing Officer (TVP) rejoined the meeting. Mr. Dhakal did not return to the meeting.

 

The Chair welcomed back the attendees and delivered the Sub-Committee’s decision.

 

The Sub-Committee resolved to:

• Grant the application with modifications to the operating schedule and including all 18 conditions listed from Thames Valley Police within the report.
• The modifications to the operating schedule were set out as follows:
  • Off sales of alcohol licensing only until 11 PM
  • On sales of alcohol licensing until 12 midnight (not 1AM)
  • Food until 1 AM anyway

 

The Chair explained the reasons for this decision, noting the Sub-Committee’s concern that the applicant had not fully understood the context of the area local to the premises and therefore hoped that the attached conditions would ensure mitigation of possible negative impacts in the future. The Chair also noted that the attached conditions from TVP had been verbally agreed by Mr. Sharma during the meeting. The Chair also explained that the limitation of alcohol off-sales brought the premises in line with the operating hours of local supermarkets and supported Special Saturation Policy which is not in place but may be returning. Finally, the Chair explained that food takeaway after 11PM must not include alcohol and that on-sales of alcohol must cease at midnight, with payment for the order having been taken before the cut off.

 

The Chair invited questions from Mr. Sharma; there were none.

 

The Legal Advisor drew Mr. Sharma’s attention to condition 9 from TVP and reminded him that it is a condition of the license to conduct a risk assessment and to consider the need for door staff.  It was clarified that the licence is dependent upon this.

 

The Chair notified Mr. Sharma’s that they would have 21 days to appeal the decision made during the hearing via the Magistrates Court from the date of receiving the decision notice.  

 

Mr. Sharma thanked the Sub-Committee and officers.

 

Mr. Sharma left the meeting.