Agenda item

Councillor Nick Wayne pointed out to the applicant and his representative that he had declared an interest in this item at the beginning of the meeting, as one of the local Ward councillors for Canonbury.

The Licensing Officer circulated to members coloured versions of photographs of the inside of the premises, which had previously been circulated in black and white.

The Trading Standards Officer described the circumstances which had led to the review. In December 2013, shortly after having taken over the business, the premises licence holder had sold alcohol, without proof of age being requested, to an 18 year old who was working with Trading Standards.  This was a breach of condition 10 on the premises licence. A similar occurrence had happened in December 2015. At that later visit, the Trading Standards Officer had carried out a comprehensive check of the alcohol and tobacco in the shop, during which a large amount of spirits was identified as non-UK duty paid and seized. The premises licence holder had informed Trading Standards that he had bought the alcohol from an acquaintance, whose own shop had closed.  No proof of purchase had been available. Subsequent checks by Trading Standards with the local authority where the closed premises had been situated proved that the premises licence holder had relayed the position accurately to Trading Standards. The premises licence holder had subsequently attended an interview and had given honest answers. He had attended training at the first available opportunity. Trading Standards officers had visited the premises on a later occasion and had found things to be in order.  They had viewed CCTV footage and noted that no alcohol had been on sale at the premises for a period of time. In the circumstances, the Trading Standards Officer suggested that a period of suspension might be appropriate, to emphasise the seriousness of the matter and to act as a deterrent to the premises owner and other licensees against future mis-management. However, he suggested that it would also be legitimate for the Committee to consider the premises owner’s self-imposed suspension to be sufficient for these purposes and that, subject to the imposition of the additional conditions in Annex 3, the licensing objectives would be met.

The Licensing Authority noted the seriousness of the incidents which had taken place in December 2013 and 2015 and how the position seemed to have improved since that time. It was noted that the premises licence holder had attended training sessions and passed the associated tests.  The Licensing Authority concurred with the view of the Trading Standards Officer and suggested that, with the addition of the additional conditions, the Committee might consider that there was no need for a suspension of the licence on this occasion.

The Police Authority’s representative stated that there had been no problems of crime and disorder associated with these particular premises, though there were ongoing problems around the Marquess Estate generally.  The Police expected high levels of management from all premises licence holders but, on this occasion, concurred with Trading Standards that there was no need for a suspension of the licence.  In response to a question, the Police’s representative confirmed that there had been no reports of crime and disorder connected to the sale of alcohol from these premises in the past six months.

RESOLVED:

That conditions 1 – 11 of Annex 3 to the premises licence be replaced with the conditions set out on page 117 and 118 of the report and that there be no further sanction on this licence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from Trading Standards that the premises had come to their attention in December 2013 when the licensee had failed to operate the “Challenge 25” policy, which was a breach of condition 8 on the licence. A similar breach of condition 8 had occurred at a further inspection in December 2015. During that later visit, Trading Standards had carried out a comprehensive check of alcohol and tobacco on the premises and found a large amount of alcohol which was identified as non-UK duty paid and therefore seized. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee was unable to produce paperwork for the alcohol, though he had provided an explanation of where the spirits came from which was plausible, but could not be fully verified. However, the licensee had subsequently attended training for Off Licence managers at the first available opportunity and, on subsequent Trading Standards inspections, had been found to be fully complying with the conditions of the licence. In fact, the licensee had ceased to sell alcohol for a period of time of his own volition. Trading Standards reported that, given the licensee’s self-imposed suspension from selling alcohol, and his compliance with the conditions of his licence and the Council’s Licensing Policy, they suggested that neither a revocation of the licence, nor a suspension, was appropriate.

The Licensing Authority noted the seriousness of the incidents in December 2013 and December 2015 when non-UK duty paid alcohol had been seized from the premises. However, they acknowledged the improvements in the operation of the business since that time and concurred with the Trading Standards team that suspension or revocation of the licence would not be considered appropriate.

The Police representative stated that there had been no problems of crime and disorder associated with this particular premises. These types of problem were ongoing problems around the Marquess Estate. The Police expected high standards of management from premises licence holders. They supported the Trading Standard team view with regard to sanctions against the licence holder. In response to a question, the Police representative confirmed that there had been no reports of crime and disorder connected to the sale of alcohol from these premises.

The licensee’s representative confirmed that the licensee accepted and would comply with the conditions proposed on pages 117 and 118 of the report.

In the circumstances the Sub-Committee formed the view that a suspension or revocation of the licence would not be an appropriate and proportionate response and, in view of the licensee’s self-imposed suspension and compliance with the conditions of his licence since January 2016, that there be no further sanction on his licence. The Sub-Committee were of the view that, with the new conditions imposed on the licence, that the licensing objectives would be promoted.