Agenda item

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Senior Licensing Officer regarding an application for the review of a Premises Licence in respect of Vine Stores, 42 Middle Street, Blackhall (for copy see file of Minutes).

A copy of the application and supporting documentation had been circulated to Members.

In presenting the report Karen Robson, Senior Licensing Officer advised that Mr Barry of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board was unable to attend the hearing but a representative was available should Members have any questions of the written submissions.

Nicola Anderson, Licensing Team Leader addressed the Sub-Committee as applicant, and took Members through the grounds for the review application which were set out in pages 80-81 of the Bundle of Evidence.

Mr Andrew Cook from Trading Standards Officer was invited to speak to his statement and evidence in connection with illicit tobacco found on the premises, details of which were given in pages 91-93 of the Bundle.

In response to a question from Mr Lalli, the Licence Holder’s Solicitor, Mr Cook confirmed that the Inspecting Officer had been shown a copy of invoices for the period June to October but he could not personally confirm that these reflected the sale of cigarettes.

Mr Lalli asked if there were any reports from the Police in relation to criminal activity at 42 Middle Street, Blackhall and Mr Cook advised that he was not aware of any but that the possession of illicit tobacco was an offence.

The Solicitor also asked if there were any concerns reported about the sale of age related products to children and was informed by Mr Cook that he was not aware of any and that no test purchases had been carried out.    

At the request of Stephen Buston, Legal Adviser to the hearing, confirmation was given that Mr Singh’s wife had never been the DPS. Mr Lalli asked if there was any documentary evidence that Mr Singh had told the Inspecting Officer that his wife was the DPS as it was not recorded in the Officer’s notebook entry at page 89. Nicola Anderson clarified that the notebook entry was from the further inspection on 30 October when the Officer sought clarification of the different names given on the Licences.

Mr Lalli referred to the Licensing Team Leader’s representations which stated that there was no incident book. By way of clarification Mr Lalli explained that a refusals book had been maintained since 2004 which had been produced during the inspection in August 2017 and had been signed and checked by an Officer. There had been some refusals since then which had been checked and signed by a PCSO. The book was shown to Members.

At this point Mr Lalli addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Mr Singh. He advised that it was always Mr Singh’s intention to return to 44 Middle Street. An application had been made on 6 July 2015 for a Premises Licence for 42 Middle Street by his agent John Ives which included a consent for him being specified as DPS.  The subsequent letter referred to in the Bundle of Evidence which was sent to his agent was never passed to Mr Singh. As soon as Mr Singh became aware he made application and displayed the summary sheet. 44 Middle Street was undergoing a full re-fit and he had hoped that the works would be completed before the hearing but there had been some slippage. Mr Singh had borrowed money to complete the works which included fittings, signage, lighting and CCTV.

Because of the cost of the works he had not been able to install CCTV at 42 Middle Street and as soon as the works were completed he would surrender his tenancy. Rather than take no action or revoke the Licence, Mr Lalli urged Members to give him the opportunity to complete the works and then re-assess the position when he was in occupation of 44 Middle Street.

A floorplan was provided for information and Mr Lalli explained the shop layout which would ensure that confectionary was not located in close proximity to alcohol. On completion of works to the joists in the premises, CCTV would be installed in the stock room, the loading area to the rear and to the front of the premises. Mr Lalli offered a site visit if Members wished to view the extent of the works.

Mr Singh was taking his responsibilities seriously. There had been no direct reports of anti-social behaviour in respect of 42 Middle Street, a refusals register was maintained and there had been no concerns raised about under-age sales or public safety. Residents had submitted a petition in support of the premises staying open.

Mr Singh hoped that he could retain his licence and the Sub-Committee was asked to adjourn the hearing and review the position in 12 weeks.   He was willing to undergo a further inspection now, or following the works.

Councillor Crathorne asked why Mr Singh had not implemented the procedures detailed in the review application, given that the Premises Licence had been granted in 2015 and a visit in August 2017 had identified these failings. Mr Lalli explained that he had asked that of the licence holder who had advised that it was because he had spent all his money on the re-fit of 44 Middle Street and had hoped to move as quickly as possible. He appreciated that some of the procedures could have been implemented at little or no cost, and he would arrange for these to be put in place for Mr Singh.

In response to a query from Councillor Marshall Mr Singh advised that he had managed a shop for around 16 years and that he now understood about licensing procedures.

Mr Lalli responded to a question from Nicola Anderson about the letter sent to John Elves which clearly stated that alcohol should not be sold until an application nominating a person as DPS was processed.

At 12.15pm the Sub-Committee Resolvedto adjourn the hearing to allow Members to deliberate the application in private. After re-convening at 12.30pm the Chair delivered the Sub-Committee’s decision.

In reaching their decision the Sub-Committee had considered the report of the Senior Licensing Officer, together with the verbal and written representations of the licence holder’s Solicitor, the applicant and Trading Standards and the written representations of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board. Members had also taken into account the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Section 182 Guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Resolved:

That the Premises Licence be revoked.