The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider an application for the review of a premises licence for Nunhead Express, also known as Nisa, located at 2 Kirkwood Road, London SE15 3XX. The meeting's agenda also included standard procedural items.

Review of Premises Licence for Nunhead Express (Nisa)

The primary item scheduled for discussion was an application for the review of the premises licence held by Nunhead Express (Nisa) at 2 Kirkwood Road, London SE15 3XX. This review was initiated by Trading Standards, a responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003¹, citing concerns related to all four licensing objectives, with a particular emphasis on the prevention of crime and disorder.

The report pack detailed a series of alleged offences that formed the grounds for the review. These included:

• Sale of illicit and counterfeit goods: On 20 June 2025, a covert test purchase allegedly resulted in the sale of counterfeit Marlboro Touch cigarettes. Subsequent inspections on 10 July 2025 uncovered a significant quantity of illicit vapes (1130 units), hand-rolling tobacco (5 pouches), and cigarettes (21 packets). These items were believed to be non-duty paid and unlawfully imported, constituting offences under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016², the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015³, the Environmental Protection (Single-Use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024⁴, and Section 144 of the Licensing Act 2003.
• Possession of illegal drugs: During the 10 July 2025 inspection, officers reportedly found a bag of cannabis in the staff room and two snap bags of hashish, priced at £20, in the till. Additionally, 100 canisters of nitrous oxide (laughing gas) were seized, believed to be sold for psychoactive effects. These findings led to a concurrent police investigation.
• Breach of licence conditions: It was alleged that on 10 July 2025, the individuals present at the premises did not hold personal licences, breaching condition 336 of the premises licence, which requires a personal licence holder to be present whenever alcohol is available for sale. Evidence also suggested that customers may have been offered credit for purchases, potentially breaching condition 127 regarding payment for alcohol.
• Sale of non-compliant products: On 14 July 2025, officers discovered 'Labubu' toy dolls on display, which were believed to contravene the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011⁵ due to the lack of manufacturer or UK importer details. The low cost also suggested they might be counterfeit, violating the Trade Marks Act 1994⁶. Furthermore, cans of Perla beer were found not to comply with the Food Information Regulations 2014⁷, as labels were not in English and lacked details of the responsible food business operator.
• Written warning and further inspections: Mr Tuncay Telli, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and licence holder, received a written warning on 3 December 2025 regarding the offences identified in July. A further inspection on 12 December 2025 again found non-compliant Perla and Zubr beer, and the premises was reportedly in breach of Section 57 of the Licensing Act 2003 for failing to have a copy of the full premises licence available.

The report indicated that representations supporting the review had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police Service and the council's licensing department, both recommending the revocation of the premises licence. One representation from another person was also included, which did not support the grounds for the review.

The report also outlined the legal framework for reviewing premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003, detailing the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, the promotion of public safety, the prevention of nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. It also referenced Southwark's Statement of Licensing Policy⁸ and guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act. The premises is located outside of a cumulative impact area⁹.

The report pack included documentation from the premises licence holder, which was intended to provide explanations for the findings. It also detailed the operating history of the premises, which has held an off-licence for alcohol sales since 2005, and listed other licensed premises in the vicinity.