Agenda item

Members of the Statutory Licensing Sub Committee of the Council’s Statutory Licensing Committee were asked to consider an application for a review of a premise licence for The Village Store, 14 Leven Road, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees, TS20 1BQ

The application had been made by the Licensing Authority acting as a Responsible Authority on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

The Chair introduced all persons who were present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.

A copy of the report and supporting documents had been provided to all persons present and to members of the Committee.

Representations had been received from other responsible authorities including Cleveland Police, Public Health and Trading Standards.

Mr A the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) attended the meeting was given the opportunity to make representation.

The Licensing Officer presented the Licensing Authority’s case to the Sub-Committee. and explained that the application for a review of the premises licence was due to the undermining of the licensing objectives; namely the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

The Sub-Committee heard that concerns about the premises related to several incidents of poor management, including underage sales, breach of licence conditions and unlicensed activity, which had resulted in enforcement advice and action.

The Sub-Committee were informed that on Thursday 29th August 2024, during an underage sale test purchase operation, alcohol was supplied to and underage volunteer.

The Trading Standards Manager who had made a representation in support of the Licensing Authority’s application, summarised Trading Standards’ concerns to the Sub-Committee, including underage sales of alcohol to children, sales of counterfeit vapes. The Trading Standards Manager also informed the Sub-Committee that Trading Standards had previously prosecuted the Mr A in 2015 for sale of counterfeit alcoholic spirits; Mr A had pleaded guilty to trademarks and food safety offences. 

The Public Health Practitioner confirmed Public Health’s support of the review application, and outlined concerns associated with alcohol and related harm to the Sub-Committee, particularly the sale of alcohol to children. 

Seargeant Bavin of Cleveland Police outlined his concerns in relation to the premises to the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee heard from Seargeant Bavin that the licensing objectives were not being upheld at the premises, demonstrated by underage sales of alcohol and the breach of licensing conditions, despite warnings to the contrary. 

Mr A and the-Sub Committee members were given an opportunity to ask questions of each of the Responsible Authority representatives. Mr A did not ask any questions.

The Sub-Committee asked the Trading Standards Manager what had happened to the illicit vapes that had been voluntarily surrendered from the premises. The Trading Standards Manager confirmed to the Sub-Committee that voluntarily surrendering the goods was considered to be a sanction in itself and confirmed that there were no criminal proceedings brought as a result of the matter. The Trading Standards Manager confirmed that warning letters were sent in relation to each seizure of illicit goods.

Mr A explained to the Sub-Committee that although he was the owner of the premises, it was not him personally making the underage sales of alcohol. The Committee heard from Mr A that he was very tight with his staff; and it was unfortunate that these things had happened.

Mr A told the Sub-Committee that he was very responsible, and told all of his staff that if they did not see photographic identification with proof of age, they should not sell alcohol.

The Sub-Committee and other parties present were invited to ask questions of the Mr A.

All parties present were given an opportunity to sum up their case.

The Licensing Officer reiterated the serious concerns over the management of the premises, including underage sales of alcohol to children and Mr A not knowing his staff members’ names on more than one occasion.

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the Council’s Statutory Licensing Committee considered the application, including the full details before Members within their agenda and the background papers.

Members noted that the review of the premises licence was made at the request of the Licensing Authority. Representations had been received from other responsible authorities including Cleveland Police, Public Health and Trading Standards. The Committee noted that no representations had been received from anyone else in support of the Premises. 

The members of the Licensing Sub-Committee carefully considered those matters brought before them and, in reaching their decision, had regard to their powers under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006), the relevant paragraphs of the Guidance Issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended) and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

It was noted that Mr A had not disputed any of the evidence presented by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted the following:-

Under the management of Mr A, the Premises had supplied alcohol to an underage volunteer during a test purchase operation on 29th August 2024.

Complaints had also been received in August 2022, in relation to the underage sale of alcohol to a young person, and June 2024, in relation to the sale of alcohol on the pavement to street drinkers, outside of the premises’ licenced area.

There were valid concerns over the management of the premises, including Mr A employing people who were unable to confirm their own name and address, and that of their employer. During an interview with licensing officers, Mr A could not provide the name or address of a staff member, whom he had to telephone to obtain those details.

The Sub-Committee had regard to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act and in particular the paragraphs in relation to the review of premises licences.

The Sub-Committee noted a premises licence holder must ensure that the promotion of the four statutory licensing objectives was a paramount consideration at all times. In the Sub-Committee’s view, Mr A had failed in that responsibility. The Sub-Committee noted that Mr A had not disputed the evidence before the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee had regard to the powers available to them when considering what action, if any, to take under the premise licence review process.

• The Sub-Committee could take no action.

The Sub-Committee viewed the actions of Mr A to be serious, and therefore did not feel that this was an option open to them in the circumstances.

• The Sub-Committee could attach further conditions to the licence.

Again, the Sub-Committee did not feel that this was a case where additional conditions were appropriate to remedy or address the behaviour of Mr A.

• The Sub-Committee could remove the Premise Licence Holder as the Designated Premises Supervisor. The Sub-Committee considered this option, however, were of the view that that this would not be appropriate given that he remained the owner and controlling mind of the premises. 

• The Sub-Committee could suspend the licence.

The Sub-Committee, in the past, had considered this an appropriate course of action to allow a premises time to take steps to remedy issues. The Sub - Committee felt, however, that the issue of the sale of alcohol to children was too serious, compounded by the concerns around the management of the premises.

• The final and ultimate sanction was the revocation of the Premises Licence.

This was not a step that the Sub-Committee took lightly and would only be taken in relation to matters which they deemed to be serious breaches of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee took this matter extremely seriously and were satisfied that this was a case where revocation of the premises licence was a necessary and appropriate sanction. After considering and weighing up all of the evidence and submissions made by the parties to the hearing, the Sub-Committee resolved to revoke the premises licence.

RESOLVED that the premises licence for The Village Store, 14 Leven Road, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees, TS20 1BQ be revoked for the reasons as detailed above.