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 Family Shopper, 2 Lyttleton Drive, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 5LE.

 

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

Members of the Statutory 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 background papers. 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 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 were raised due to a complaint received about the opening hours of the premises. The Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that concerns that led to the review application being made related to poor management and non-compliance at the premises, including positive underage sale test purchases, breach of licence conditions and unlicensed activity.

 

The Licensing Officer advised the Sub-Committee that the most recent incident of concern was on 4th August 2024. The Sub-Committee were told that an inspection of CCTV showed that alcohol was illegally supplied outside of the authorised licensable hours, when, in addition, a personal licence holder was not on site, contrary to the licence conditions attached to the premises licence.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. The Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants  asked no questions of the Licensing Officer

 

The Sub-Committee asked the Licensing Officer if the recent application for a Mr W to become the Designated Premises Supervisor would be granted, considering that he had previously sold alcohol to children. The Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that no decision had been made in relation to that separate application, which would be considered in due course. The Sub-Committee heard that there was a 14-day consultation period for that application.

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Thorpe of Cleveland Police that the sale of alcohol to children was a criminal offence. PC Thorpe advised the Sub-Committee that Cleveland Police fully supported the Licensing Authority’s application for a review of the premises licence as they did not want any premises to sell alcohol to children.

 

PC Thorpe told the Sub-Committee that where premises supplied alcohol to children more than once, this heightened the seriousness of the concerns for police.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of PC Thorpe. Neither the Sub-Committee nor The Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants  asked questions of PC Thorpe.

 

The Public Health Practitioner, 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 problem of underage drinking within the community.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of the Public Health Practitioner. Neither the Sub-Committee nor the Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants asked any questions of the Public Health Practitioner.

 

The Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants informed the Sub-Committee that his client, had made mistakes, but had now learned from them.

 

The Sub-Committee heard that the PLH now had appropriate training procedures in place.

 

The Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants assured the Sub-Committee that the PLH was now taking full control of this premises daily, and that he had extensive experience in order to do so.

 

The Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants told the Sub-Committee that the current designated premises supervisor, Ms B, had had personal issues, including caring for her mother, who was suffering from ill health.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants that he understood that the premises licence may be revoked, and expressed his concerns that doing so would put the PLH’s business at risk and people out of employment.

 

The Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants stressed to the Sub-Committee that his client had invested money in ensuring that all of his staff now held a personal licence, and that he did not feel that revoking the premises licence would be a fair and proportionate decision.

 

All parties were invited to ask questions of the PLH and his representative.

Although it was understood by all parties that the application for Mr W to become the Designated Premises Supervisor was a separate matter, PC Thorpe confirmed to the Sub-Committee that Cleveland Police had not had an opportunity to consider the application and had therefore not determined if Cleveland Police had any objections.

It was accepted by all parties that Mr W had sold alcohol to children, and that Ms B was currently the Designated Premises Supervisor.

 

In response to the Sub-Committee’s questioning, the Premise Licence Holders representative of Arka Licensing Consultants explained that Ms B continued to take care of her ill mother, and that Ms B was unavailable for interview at the appointed time, and that no request to rearrange the interview had been received.

 

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

 

Members of the Statutory 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.

 

Members of the Statutory 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 representative had not disputed any of the evidence presented by the responsible authorities.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the following:-

 

• On 16th April 2024, 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. The PLH 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 6th August 2024, following a test purchase exercise at another of the PLH’s stores, he was proactively reminded via text message of the requirement to ensure that at all times when alcohol was offered for sale on the premises, a personal licence holder must be on the premises as per the additional condition attached to the licence.

 

• Following the receipt of a complaint, on 1st September 2024, a Licensing Officer attended the premises and conducted an inspection. Licence conditions were found to be being breached including the requirements:

 

o for all staff to be fully trained in relation to underage sales and the associated “Challenge 25” policy;

 

o for training records to be kept and maintained;

 

o for there to be a minimum of two notices displayed on the premises indicating that underage sales were illegal and that adults who buy alcohol for those under the age of 18 are committing an offence; and

 

o for the business to maintain a refusals book to record all instances where the sale of alcohol had been refused.

 

• During the inspection on 1st September 2024, a check of the CCTV system showed that alcohol was unlawfully sold on 4th August 2024 at 7:34am, outside of the authorised licenced hours. The employee who made the sale stated that he held a personal licence with Middlesbrough Council; checks revealed this to be false.

The PLH sent licensing officers a message to confirm that the CCTV system was displaying the wrong time, and that the correct time was around 8:30am; still outside of the permitted licensed hours.

 

• On 12th September 2024, a formal PACE interview under caution took place with the PLH, who stated that the person who made the sale on 4th August 2024 did not hold a personal licence at that time but claimed that he had applied for a licence. The PLH confirmed that he did not hold training records for the employee in question, who had only received verbal training before they were left unsupervised, in breach of the conditions attached to the licence.

 

• The Designated Premises Supervisor, Ms B was also invited for a formal interview, however she failed to attend, citing being unwell as her reason for non-attendance, and did not request to rearrange the interview.

 

What sanction, if any, should be imposed by the Licensing Sub Sub-Committee.

 

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

 

The Sub-Committee noted that a Premises Licence Holder (PLH) must ensure that the promotion of the four statutory licensing objectives was always the paramount consideration. In the Sub-Committee’s view, the PLH had failed in his responsibility in respect of the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the PLH representative had been candid in admitting wrongdoing on the PLH’s behalf. The Sub-Committee also noted that although this was a newer business for the PLH, he was not new to this type of business; the PLH’s representative himself told the Sub-Committee that the PLH was experienced. The Sub-Committee noted that none of the evidence before the Sub-Committee was disputed.

 

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 in his management of the premises, particularly in relation to the sale of alcohol to children, to be so serious that they did not feel that this was an appropriate sanction 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 the concerns before them. The Sub-Committee noted that the conditions added to the premises licence after concerns were highlighted had been breached, demonstrating to the Sub-Committee that this option was ineffective.

 

• The Sub-Committee could remove Ms B 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 the PLH remained the sole director of the Premises, and he was therefore the controlling mind of the business. The Sub-Committee also noted that Ms B was in a relationship with the PLH as his partner/wife. It had also come to the attention of the Sub-Committee that the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor, Mr W had previously sold alcohol to children. The Sub-Committee felt that this proposal brought the PLH’s judgement in his management of the premises into question.

 

• 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 had already been afforded opportunities and support to remedy issues, and that this sanction was therefore not suitable in the circumstances.

 

• The final and ultimate sanction was the revocation of the premises licence.

This was not a step that the Sub-Committee took lightly and was only taken in relation to matters where 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 Cleveland Police 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 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 Family Shopper, 2 Lyttleton Drive, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 5LE be revoked for the reason as detailed above.