The owner of the convenience store in Cherry Hinton Road had asked for a licence to sell alcohol, but was refused after concerns were raised by police and trading standards.
A convenience shop in Cambridge has been told it can not sell alcohol after concerns were raised by police and trading standards. Cambridge City Council had been asked to grant a licence for alcohol to be sold at Neluxa Sparkles in Cherry Hinton Road.
However, councillors refused to grant the licence highlighting previous issues faced at the shop, including alcohol being sold to teenagers. Priyamwatha Mariflo had applied for a licence to sell alcohol at the shop between 9am and 11pm, seven days a week.
Mrs Mariflo had previously been the licence holder and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) at the shop from 2007 to April 2024. She transferred the licence following a review in 2024 after an illegal worker was found in the shop and concerns were raised about age restricted products being sold to teenagers.
The shop licence was later suspended following a further review in September 2024 after alcohol was sold to a 16-year-old volunteer in a test purchase exercise. A city council report explained that since then there had been a few applications to transfer the licence, before it was surrendered back to the city council by Kirubakaran Mahendran in October last year.
The latest application for a new alcohol licence said all staff at the shop who sold alcohol would be trained and would receive refresher training every quarter. It added that a “comprehensive CCTV” system would be installed and would continually record while the shop was open and selling alcohol, with the footage stored for a minimum of 30 days.
The application also said a Challenge 25 policy would be implemented and a refusals log kept to record all incidents where sale of alcohol is refused.
Police raise ‘significant concerns’ about granting new alcohol licence
However, a number of responsible authorities raised concerns about a new licence being granted to Mrs Mariflo. A hearing was held in December for councillors to consider whether to grant the licence.
PC Clare Metcalfe, licensing officer at Cambridgeshire Constabulary, highlighted previous issues that had led to the licence being reviewed before when Mrs Mariflo was the DPS.
Her statement said: “There are significant concerns that granting this premises licence to Mrs Mariflo will be detrimental to the promotion of the licensing objectives, as history has shown they have not been a priority to Mrs Mariflo.
“There is no evidence that the previous ineffective management style and poor staff practices entrenched at the premises will change, which will lead to a further undermining of the prevention of crime and disorder and protection of children from harm licensing objectives.”
PC Metcalfe also highlighted more recent concerns, telling the city council that on visits to the shop officers had seen alcohol being displayed, despite the shop not having a licence to sell alcohol.
A report said PC Metcalfe had been told that following the visits in October the alcohol had all been removed from the shop. However, PC Metcalfe told the hearing that she had “suspicions that alcohol sales continued” adding that on December 16, a colleague had visited the shop and seen a “large amount of alcohol in the refrigerated area”, noting that the cooler blinds were down.
The report did highlight that PC Metcalfe did accept that the blinds were down and it could not be stated that an offence under the licensing act had taken place of ‘exposing alcohol for unauthorised sale’. However, councillors said this visit was “concerning” as it occurred “only days before the hearing”.
Kirsty Draycott, senior trading standards officer, said trading standards also objected to the licence being granted. She highlighted previous sales of alcohol to teenagers.
She also referenced a written statement submitted by Mrs Mariflo to a previous hearing where she acknowledged she had “fallen short of the responsibilities” and had removed herself as DPS and licence holder. Ms Draycott said trading standards have continued to receive allegations of underage sales being made at the shop.
Bill Donne, a representative of Mrs Mariflo, accepted she had “failed in the past on certain occasions to exercise appropriate control”. However, it was claimed that Mrs Mariflo’s husband had “effectively run the business” from 2022/23 and that the convictions, unlawful trading and breaches of conditions “were his fault”.
Councillors were also told there had been a breakdown in their relationship and that Mr Mariflo had left the country in 2025. Mr Donne proposed at the hearing to make another person, Mr Reddy, the DPS, rather than Mrs Mariflo.
He said Mr Reddy showed through his background and approach that he could “demonstrate the necessary competency and leadership to run the premises or act as DPS”.
However, councillors said they received “underwhelming responses” from Mr Reddy, including when he was asked to explain what makes a good DPS. Councillors also “noted his lack of previous experience in this role” and said they were not convinced he would be able to “take the robust approach deemed necessary at this premises”.
‘Refusal necessary and proportionate’
A decision notice published by the city council said councillors had carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of Mrs Mariflo, including that she had not been working the business full time and that the “marital breakdown explained aspects of the history”.
It said they had also considered the “robust conditions” proposed and that there would be “no further involvement by those associated with historic failings”. However, councillors concluded that granting the licence to sell alcohol would “likely undermine the licensing objectives”.
The notice said the evidence from the responsible authorities was “consistent, detailed and mutually reinforcing”, whereas it said Mrs Mariflo’s case “relied heavily on explanations and future assurances”.
It added that these assurances had been made before and that this had “not prevented repetition of the same types of breach”. The notice said: “The sub-committee found that the risk to the licensing objectives was supported by a long and recent evidential history.
“The concerns were not historic only, but continued into late 2025. Lesser steps, including conditions, had been tried repeatedly and had not been effective. In those circumstances, refusal was found to be necessary and proportionate.”
To get more breaking news and top stories delivered directly to your phone, join our new WhatsApp community. Click this link to receive your daily dose of CambridgeshireLive content.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice .
