Agenda and minutes

Councillor Satnam Gill welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Nick Wayne.

Councillor Poole substituted for Councillor Wayne.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The trading standards officer reported that in December 2016 there had been a Challenge 21 test purchase and the premises licence holder sold to a 21 year old volunteer.  He had not asked for ID.  Officers had difficulty in engagement and the premises licence holder was quite hostile. He was asked to attend a training course but stated that he was too busy. A further test purchase operation was held in January 2017 and alcohol was sold to a 15 year old.  The seller was uncooperative and hostile and did not hold a personal licence (a requirement of the premises licence).  Trading standards did not consider that they could do anything more with the business.  The licensee was not taking his responsibility or the conditions on the licence seriously.

In response to questions it was noted that, following the failed Challenge 25 in December, trading standards had invited the designated premises supervisor and staff to training on age restricted products.  The business was not interested.  No officer panel had been held as the training was considered light touch enforcement and constructive to help improve systems.  Following the underage sale in January, licensing officers visited the premises to offer advice and to undertake a check for condition compliance and found further conditions being breached and the owner hostile and not interested.  The trading standards officer did not consider that the licensee had an understanding of the licensing objectives.  The licensee had not considered training a priority.  It was noted that the licence holder and the owner were the same person.

The police officer supported the review brought by trading standards.  The police had visited on the 15 May and had found numerous breaches of conditions.  The license holder was aggressive and not prepared to listen. 

The public health authority raised their concerns regarding the Challenge 25 failure and the sale to an underage volunteer.  They also raised concerns regarding the availability of super strength beer at the premises.  Alcohol had a real impact on the health and well-being on the most vulnerable. Islington had the second highest rate of alcohol hospital admissions in London.  High strength alcohol provided at low cost was an easy way to obtain cheap alcohol.  The licensee had a disregard for the conditions on his licence.

In response to questions, it was noted that minors would be attracted to alcopops and also super strength alcohol sold at a cheap price which would cause people to get drunk quickly.

The licensing authority asked that the Sub-Committee consider licensing policy 25 regarding the sale of alcohol to children which expected licensees to have robust management arrangements in place.  These arrangements were lacking in this premises.  The licensing authority had no confidence that this would not happen again.

In response to questions it was noted that a previous licence had been revoked.  An appeal against revocation had been withdrawn when a new licence was granted to the premises with reduced hours and additional conditions.  The licensee had no connection to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

The trading standards officer stated he had brought the review following the witnessing of a delivery of alcohol to the premises by white van, suspected to be non-duty paid.  On the day of delivery, officers asked for evidence of purchase.  This was followed by a document from the licensee’s accountant with evidence of purchase.  Following further enquiries it was established that the invoice was issued several hours after delivery and was an attempt to deceive which was the main aggravating factor. Evading duty was not a victimless crime but misled the public and cheated other competitors with smaller margins.   The licensee went to great lengths which were calculated to mislead and concocted another purchase of alcohol.  He considered this was very serious and should be sanctioned.  The home office guidance at paragraph 11.23 referred to a suspension as a deterrent and welcomed a short to medium suspension with the addition of conditions. 

In response to questions the trading standards officer stated that if someone was explicitly dishonest, they could not be trained to be honest.  The trading standards officer stated that a suspension should be for at least two weeks to allow for training.  The Sub-Committee noted that all staff had now been trained. 

The police supported the review by trading standards and stated that the licensee was trying to evade excise duty.  He stated that there had not been any incidents of crime and disorder at the premises. 

The licensing authority raised concerns about the breach.  He stated the discovery of illicit alcohol had been by chance and so they were not aware of the extent of this behaviour.  Residents in their representations had stated they had not been offered non-duty paid alcohol, but he stated that customers would not be aware of items that were non-duty paid.  The proposed CCTV condition was an effective tool for compliance.

In response to questions it was stated that proposed conditions that were outlined on page 83 of the agenda would be appropriate.  There was a significant concern regarding the standards of management due to this cover-up.  The licensee would need to restore credibility for faith to be regained.  The guidance considered suspension for use as a deterrent.  Confidence in the management was low and the licensing authority considered that this could be built up through a period of suspension. 

One resident who spoke in support of the licensee stated that suspension would be catastrophic for this small business.  No deceit had been intended and the licensee had been misinterpreted. She stated that the police had an app that connected shopkeepers and it would be useful for the licensee to be able to join that scheme. Another resident stated that the licensee’s full record needed to be taken into consideration, not just the last couple of months.  Local people benefitted from this business and it was important to look at both sides.  The licensee had a good history of trading.  There needed to be better communication on all sides to enable businesses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

The Sub-Committee noted that this temporary event notice had been withdrawn by the applicant.