Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The trading standards officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the trading standards officer.

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the officer.

The Metropolitan Police Service representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police representative.

The representative from the premises addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the representative from the premises.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The licensing sub-committee went into closed session at 2.40pm.

The licensing sub-committee resumed at 3.29pm and the chair read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having had regard to the application by other persons for a review of the premises granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Right Price Supermarket, situated at 214-216 Borough High Street, London SE1 3TP and having had regard also to all other relevant representations has decided it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to revoke the licence.

Reasons

This was a hearing of an application by trading standards for a review of the premises known as Right Price Supermarket situated at 216-218 Borough High Street, London SE1 3TP.

This application was made under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from trading standards, the applicant for the review, who made representations in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.  The officer advised that they had conducted a joint inspection of the premises with HMRC on 31 January 2014.  On inspection 156 litres of duty evaded Italian wine, 76 litre of duty evaded sparkling Italian wine and 3.5kg of duty evaded shisha were found at the premises.  All items were seized and receipts and invoices were requested.  However, to date no receipts or invoices have been received by the authorities.

On 12 February 2013, following a complaint, trading standards visited the premises to inspect tobacco.  On inspection 6.8kg of shisha was found.  The trading standards officer advised that none of this shisha complied with relevant health labelling requirements, nor had any duty been paid.

On 22 January 2014, trading standards officers visited the premises on a pre-arranged advisory visit.  No personal licence holder was present at the premises at this time.  During this visit, matters were identified requiring attention.

On 7 February 2014, there was no personal licence holder on the premises when alcohol was supplied and on the same date, at 00.20 hours alcohol was sold outside of the licensed hours as part of a test purchase. 

On 11 February 2014, as part of a test purchase, a 14 year old female was sold a bottle of Malibu Z Pear and a packet of ten Marlboro cigarettes without questioning or verifying her age. 

The trading standards officer informed the sub-committee that in their opinion the inclusion of additional conditions on the licence would be of little value in achieving compliance with the licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority who advised the sub-committee that they supported the review by trading standards.  They advised that the premises had knowingly or carelessly sold alcohol and tobacco to the most vulnerable group, children. He was sceptical that any further conditions to the licence would be adhered to.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service who advised that they supported the review.  They informed the sub-committee that the operation of this premises fell far below the standards expected.  They further advised that they did not think that additional conditions were workable and supported a revocation of the licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from the representative from Right Price Supermarket who advised that the premises licence holder accepted that he was responsible for any breaches of the licence that happened at the premises, despite delegating management of the premises.  The premises licence holder was not aware of the breaches of the licence until after the inspections.

The representative advised that the premises licence holder had made the robust decision to change management of the premises and proposed a number of additional conditions to be added to the licence, which in their opinion addressed the licensing objectives.  On the agreement of all parties, the sub-committee allowed the admission of a list of the proposed conditions.  The representative also proposed a three month suspension of the licence.

In summing up, in response to the list of proposed conditions and suggested three month suspension of the licence, the trading standards officer advised that in their opinion that a number of the proposed conditions would be unworkable.  He also added that there would be no control over who took over the management of the premises and whether they would adhere to the proposed conditions.

In light of the serious nature and the number of breaches of the licence conditions, including underage sale of tobacco and alcohol to a 14 year old, the sub-committee have no faith in the management of the premises to implement additional conditions.  The sub-committee resolved to revoke the licence and suggested that any new management of the premises apply for a new licence including a detailed operating schedule in their own right.

In reaching this decision the sub committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives.

The licensing sub-committee considered that its decision was appropriate and proportionate in order to address the licensing objectives.