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 39 Oxford Road, Thornaby, Stockton -On -Tees, TS17 6LW

 

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.

 

Representations had been received from other responsible authorities including  in support of the licence review from Cleveland Police and Public Health

 

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.

 

The Sub-Committee considered a request from the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and Designated Premises Supervisor’s (DPS) representative to allow Ms AC, proposed Designated Premises Supervisor, to attend the hearing and speak in support of the premises. The Sub-Committee heard that an application for Ms AC to become the Designated Premises Supervisor had been made, and was being considered separately to the review application, as per the usual procedure for such an application. The Sub-Committee confirmed that Ms AC was welcome to speak in relation to how she would manage the premises if the application was successful, however could not comment on incidents that she had not witnessed. All parties confirmed that they had no objection to this.

 

The Licensing Team Leader presented the report to the Sub-Committee.

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the Council’s Statutory Licensing Committee heard the above application, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda and the background papers. The Members noted that the review of the premises licence was made at the request of the Licensing Authority. Representations had also been received from other responsible authorities, including Cleveland Police and Public Health.

 

A Licensing Officer presented the matter to the Sub-Committee.

The Licensing Officer explained to the Sub-Committee that the review application related to the undermining of both the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee heard that concerns about the premises related to poor management and non-compliance at the premises, including positive underage sale test purchases, breach of licence conditions and unlicensed activity. The Sub-Committee were advised that the most recent incident of concern was when alcohol was illegally supplied outside the authorised licensable hours, when, in addition, a personal licence holder was not on site on 1st August 2024, contrary to the robust licence conditions attached to the premises licence.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. In response to questioning from the PLH / DPS’s representative, the Licensing Officer confirmed that there had been four incidents at the premises that had given rise to the review application being made. The Licensing Officer also confirmed that the “escalating enforcement advice” referred to in the Licensing Authority’s submissions included written warnings given to the PLH / DPS at each stage, interviews were conducted with the PLH / DPS and advice was given to strengthen the premises licence with robust conditions through a minor variation, however despite this action the Licensing Authority’s concerns were not satisfied.

 

In response to further questioning from the PLH / DPS’s representative, the Licensing Officer confirmed to the Sub-Committee that in August 2024, when the PLH / DPS was interviewed, he confirmed that his new training system consisted of the PLH / DPS’s representative delivering staff training going forward. When asked by the PLH / DPS’s representative if this satisfied the Licensing Authority’s concerns, the Licensing Officer advised the Sub-Committee that she had not yet seen any evidence of this training being implemented, and that it would take some time to demonstrate improvements.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from Cleveland Police that the sale of alcohol to children was a criminal offence. The representative for Cleveland Police advised the Sub-Committee that when premises failed underage sale test purchase compliance checks, this raised serious concerns from a police perspective, which was the reason that Cleveland Police fully support the Licensing Authority’s application for a review of the premises licence.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of Cleveland Police’s representative. In response to questioning from the Sub-Committee about police action, Cleveland Police’s representative confirmed that in fully supporting the Licensing Authority’s application for a review of the premises licence, Cleveland Police were taking action to address their concerns.

 

In response to questioning from the PLH / DPS’s representative, Cleveland Police confirmed that since 2016 there had not been any complaints to them in relation to the premises.

 

The Public Health Practitioner representing Public Health, confirmed to the Sub-Committee that Public Health were in full support of the review application. The Public Health Practitioner advised the Sub-Committee that in selling alcohol to children, the premises was not only putting children’s health at risk at a time when their brain was still developing but was also likely to be adding to the problems of anti-social behaviour and underage drinking in the local community.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the Public Health Practitioner that it was crucial to acknowledge that the premises was situated in the Mandale and Victoria ward, in a row of shops in a residential area, within walking distance of three primary schools.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of the Public Heath Practitioner.

 

The PLH / DPS’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that his client, had ran the premises for over eight years, and had been the Designated Premises Supervisor and the Premises Licence Holder during that time.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the PLH / DPS’s representative that the PLH / DPS employed three local, experienced staff members, but that the responsibility for running the premises fell to him, including visiting the cash and carry. The PLH / DPS’s representative confirmed that The PLH / DPS’s partner previously assisted in the running of the business, however, was less involved now as she was a carer for her mother, who was in ill health.

 

The Sub-Committee were told that the PLH / DPS conceded that whilst he was putting new systems in place to improve compliance, such changes were not currently available in writing to evidence new processes to the authorities.

 

The PLH / DPS’s representative explained to the Sub-Committee that the PLH / DPS understood that he needed to be very strict in order to ensure one hundred percent compliance with his legal requirements at the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the PLH / DPS’s representative that the PLH / DPS now employed five or six staff members, who had not yet all gained their personal licences, which took time, and that the PLH / DPS had left them on their own at the premises, contrary to the conditions attached to the premises licence.

 

The Sub-Committee were also told by the PLH / DPS’s representative that this had been discussed with Ms AC, the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor who now managed the premises, who understood the importance of CCTV within the premises, and the licence conditions in place to regulate this. The PLH / DPS’s representative confirmed that whilst the new staff knew how to operate the CCTV system, the PLH / DPS was concerned that they may delete something from the system that was required to be kept.

 

With regard to the positive underage sale test purchases the PLH / DPS’s representative told the Sub-Committee that one of these was due to a new member of staff, one who left the same day that they began working at the premises, and the other who left after only one week.

 

The PLH / DPS’s representative stressed to the Sub-Committee that the PLH / DPS was handling too many responsibilities himself, managing three premises himself, which unintentionally led to the issues raised, however he had now engaged his representative as an external trainer provider and was attempting to put everything in place to ensure that the issues raised did not reoccur.

 

In relation to the application to make Ms AC the new Designated Premises Supervisor at the premises, the PLH / DPS’s representative confirmed that AC had been employed by the PLH / DPS full time for six years, and prior to that she had worked as a manager for Sainsburys for 13 years, demonstrating that she was therefore well trained and experienced.

 

The Sub-Committee were told by the PLH / DPS’s representative that there had been no complaints from the public in eight years, the only complaint having been made on 17th December 2024, after the review application was made, alleging that the complainant’s children were being supplied vodka from the premises. The PLH / DPS’s representative expressed that in his view this was a false complaint that the PLH / DPS did not accept.

 

The PLH / DPS’s representative explained to the Sub-Committee that, if given a chance to improve, a till prompt system would be implemented that prompted the staff to ask for identification when selling alcohol, however the PLH / DPS did accept that the staff still did not ask for identification when the underage sales were made. The PLH / DPS’s representative assured the Committee that six monthly refresher training was now in place, and that he was also ensuring that all staff received the Challenge 25 training.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the PLH / DPS’s representative that the PLH / DPS conceded that although the last two years had not gone well compliance wise, the previous six years were good.

 

All parties present were invited to ask questions of the PLH / DPS’s representative and the PLH / DPS.

 

Although it was understood by all parties that the application for Ms AC to become the Designated Premises Supervisor was a separate matter, the Licensing Team Leader did confirm, in response to questioning from the Sub-Committee, that there were no concerns with Ms AC becoming the Designated Premises Supervisor, however there was a fourteen-day consultation process currently underway. The representative for Cleveland Police confirmed to the Sub-Committee that Cleveland Police had no objections to Ms AC becoming the Designated Premises Supervisor.

 

The Licensing Team Leader explained to the Sub-Committee that every premises had a Premises Licence Holder and a Designated Premises Supervisor. Although Ms AC may become the Designated Premises Supervisor, the Licensing Team Leader advised the Sub-Committee that the PLH / DPS would still be the Premises Licence Holder and therefore he would be ultimately responsible for the premises.

 

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

 

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee of the Council’s Statutory Licensing Committee considered the above application carefully, including everything that they had read and heard from each of the parties.

 

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 the PLH / DPS’s representative had not disputed any of the evidence presented by the responsible authorities, other than the anonymous complaint received on 17th December 2024 that was, in his view, false.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the following:-

 

• On 29th June 2022, during a test purchase exercise an underage volunteer was supplied with alcohol at the premises. A formal PACE interview under caution took place with the PLH / DPS. A formal written warning was issued.

 

• On 16th May 2023, again during a test purchase exercise an underage volunteer was supplied with alcohol at the premises. A formal PACE interview under caution took place with the PLH / DPS.

 

• The PLH / DPS agreed to submit a minor variation to the premises licence to add robust conditions to the licence including, at all times when alcohol was offered for sale on the premises, a personal licence holder must be on the premises and available to supervise sales.

 

• On 26th September 2023, an underage sale test purchase exercise was carried out, the sale was correctly refused by the employee.

 

• On 1st August 2024 alcohol was supplied to Licensing Officers outside of the authorised licensable hours, during an early morning test purchase exercise. The employee who supplied the alcohol did not hold a personal licence.

 

• On 2nd August 2024, a Licensing Officer revisited the premises, another employee was at the premises, working alone, who did not hold a personal licence. During the visit the employee could not operate the CCTV system, an additional breach of licence.

 

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 that 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, was that the PLH / DPS had failed in his responsibility.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the PLH / DPS’s representative had been frank in admitting wrongdoing on PLH / DPS’s behalf. None of the evidence before the Sub-Committee was disputed, except for the anonymous complaint.

 

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 omissions of the PLH / DPS to be serious, and therefore did not feel that this was an appropriate option 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 concerns that had come to their attention at the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the robust conditions added to the premises licence following concerns had already been breached, demonstrating to the Sub-Committee that this option was futile.

 

• The Sub-Committee could remove the PLH / DPS 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 as the Premises Licence holder and controlling mind of the business.

 

• 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 PLH / DPS had already been afforded opportunities and had been supported in order to remedy issues, however, to no avail.

 

• 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 that the licensing objectives were being undermined significantly.

 

The Sub-Committee took this matter extremely seriously, particularly the concerns raised by Public Health, and were therefore 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 Convenience Store, 39 Oxford Road, Thornaby, Stockton on Tees, TS17 6LW be revoked for the reasons as detailed above.