Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

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

The ward councillor, Barry Hargrove, addressed the sub-committee as a witness for the trading standards officer.  Members had questions for the ward councillor.

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

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The legal representative for the premises, the owner of the premises and the designated premises supervisor addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the representatives for the premises.

All parties were given an opportunity for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 12.15pm.

The meeting resumed at 1.15pm.

RESOLVED:

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having had regard to the application made under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 by the Southwark Council trading standards team for a review of the premises licence issued in respect of the premises known as Bottles Off Licence, 27 Peckham High Street, London SE15 5EB 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

The reasons for this decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the trading standards officer, the applicant for the review, who advised that there had previously been a review of the licence in September 2014 when the licence had been suspended for two weeks and modified with conditions.  The review application to which this decision relates had been submitted in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives and related to matters witnessed at the premises on 4 and 9 December 2015.  On 4 December 2015 trading standards attended the premises with the police to carry out a check for compliance with the premises licence and also in respect of other trading standards matters.  The designated premises supervisor (DPS) was in the shop with her husband and two young children. 

The DPS’ husband appeared to be intoxicated.  Upon examination of items offered for sale there was the display of smuggled/non duty paid alcohol, non-EU labelled spirits that infringed food labelling regulations; beers and ciders with an alcohol by volume (ABV) of more than 7% were on display and offered for sale at the premises in breach of condition 840 of the premises licence; no training records were available in breach of condition 8AB; there was no signage in regards to the Challenge 25 in breach of condition 8AC and they failed to use a refused sales register in breach of condition 8AI

Trading standards also alleged the offer for sale / sale of super strength beers, lagers and ciders to alcoholics and street drinkers.  This was evidenced by individual cans being sold.

Trading standard interviewed the DPS under caution who had exercised her right not to answer questions.  She was, however, apologetic.  The DPS’ husband was interviewed under caution during which he stated that Bottles Off-Licence was his business and that he was the sole trader.  He was unable to explain why he was not on the premises licence either as the premises licence holder and/or the DPS.  He was evasive about where the non-duty paid spirits came from.  Concerning the super strength beers and ciders, he stated that he knew of the maximum strength condition, but it was old stock which was bought before the previous review hearing. Both accepted simple cautions for the offences.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) representative who supported the review and stated that the review application detailed serious breaches of the premises licence in particular, the conditions that were placed on the licence following the review hearing in September 2014. Since this time, the premises had been found in breach of licence conditions on separate occasions.  As a result, the MPS advised that they had serious concerns over the integrity and honesty of the DPS and her husband being involved in the running of the premises and recommended that the premises licence is revoked. The Metropolitan Police Service also called as a witness a local ward councillor who gave evidence of the anti-social behaviour and street drinking in the area, which was fuelled by premises that sold super strength lagers and ciders.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority and who supported the review and who advised that there had been a previous review of the premises licence in September 2014 which concerned an underage sale.  As a result of the review, the licence had been suspended for 2-weeks, and an additional 9 conditions were added to the licence.  The incidents that had occurred on 4 and 9 December followed on from other trading standards offences. The DPS and her husband have demonstrated that they were either unwilling or unable to promote any of the licensing objectives and as a result, licensing was of the view that neither was capable of running licensed premises.  Licensing recommended that the licence be revoked.

The legal representative for the premises informed the licensing sub-committee that they did not contest any of the evidence that had been submitted by the responsible authorities.  The legal representative also advised that the licence holder recognised the seriousness of the situation and the both she and her husband were remorseful.  The legal advisor further advised that premises were the family’s only income and that the situation had put considerable pressure on the licence holder.  The legal representative appreciated that in view of the circumstances, and comments made at the previous licensing sub committee in September 2014, revocation was likely to be in the forefront of the committee’s mind.  As an alternative, the sub-committee were invited to suspend the licence for a maximum of 3-months, remove the DPS and modify the licence with conditions. 

The licensing sub-committee carefully considered all the written and oral representations before it, and deemed that these breaches were unacceptable.  The incidents in 2015 took place just over 1 year after the September 2014 review.  At that review the licensing sub-committee found the circumstances “extremely serious and considered revoking the licence”; The licensing sub-committee on that occasion generously gave the licence holder a second chance.  Unfortunately, the two week suspension that was imposed clearly had not had any effect on the licence holder. Additional licence conditions had been imposed, but were blatantly breached almost immediately. Despite imposing condition 840 (concerning the beers, lagers and ciders above ABV of 7%), the licence holder’s husband advised that the alcohol found in the premises was old stock; trading standards produced evidence demonstrated that above ABV of 7% beers, ciders and lagers were regularly purchased form cash and carriers following the September 2014 review.

This licensing sub-review committee is satisfied that it was the DPS’ husband who controls the business and as a result, the DPS is unable to carry out her responsibilities as the premises licence holder and DPS.

There was therefore, no alternative to revoke the premises licence.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

This decision is open to appeal by either:

a)  The applicant for the review

b)  The premises licence holder

c)  Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application  

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the magistrates’ court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision.