Decision:
DECISION NOTICE - LICENSING ACT 2003 SUB-COMMITTEE
SUMMARY REVIEW OF THE PREMISES LICENCE – 653 LINCOLN ROAD, PETERBOROUGH
11 DECEMBER 2014
This Decision Notice refers to the summary review of the premises licence 653 Lincoln Road, Peterborough.
The review was applied for by Trading Standards, following convictions on 15 October 2014 for a number of offices relating to the sale of smuggled tobacco products, under the prevention of crime and disorder objective.
Trading Standards recommended the revocation of the licence or, failing revocation, additional conditions. Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Public Health, as Responsible Authorities, supported the review. Trading Standards, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the Licence Holder made submissions to the Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee considered:
· The Government Guidance and the Council’s own statement of Licensing Policy which reflected the Government Guidance;
· Representations in writing and those made to the Sub-Committee at the hearing from all parties;
· The letter from the licence holder dated October;
· The newspaper reports kindly submitted by the licence holder’s representative; and
· The proposed conditions as an alternative to revocation.
The licence holder’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Jaferi was out of the country from 11 March so was not able to monitor what was happening in the shop during his absence, and that it was the responsibility of the designated premises supervisor. However, Mr Jaferi was in the country on the 5 March.
The tobacco products were being sold by a member of staff without his knowledge.
The Sub-Committee disregarded the previous issues of the out of date food prosecution and failed test purchase, given the time that had elapsed.
The options available to the Sub-Committee were:
(a) to modify the conditions of the premises licence;
(b) to exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;
(c) to remove the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
(d) to suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months, or
(e) to revoke the licence.
It was the Sub-Committee’s decision to exclude from the licence, the licensable activity of the retail sale of alcohol as the Sub-Committee did not believe that any conditions would prevent further sales of such products.
Any party in objection to the decision may appeal to the Peterborough Magistrates Court within 21 days of receiving this formal notice at:
Peterborough Court House, Bridge Street, Peterborough, PE1 1ED. Tel No. 0845 3100575.
Councillor Thacker MBE
Committee Chairman
Minutes:
1. Apologies for Absence |
There were no apologies for absence received.
|
2. Declarations of Interest |
There were no declarations of interest.
|
3.11 3. Application |
Review of Premises Licenses, 653 Lincoln Road
|
3.11 3.1 Application Reference |
070306 |
3.11 3.2 Sub-Committee Members |
Councillor Thacker (Chairman) Councillor Hiller Councillor Saltmarsh
|
3.11 3.3 Officers |
Terri Martin, Regulatory Officer – Licensing Colin Miles, Lawyer – Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee Pippa Turvey, Senior Democratic Services Officer – Sub-Committee Clerk
|
3.11 3.4 Applicant |
Trading Standards |
3.11 3.5 Nature of Application |
Application Type
Review of Premises Licence
Summary of Application
To consider and determine an application for the review of a Premises Licence under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 for 653 Lincoln Road, taking into account the representation made by Trading Standards in their capacity as a Responsible Authority and the representations in support of the review by Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Public Health, also Responsible Authorities. The review was brought under the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety objectives.
A summary of the issues raised within the representations included:
|
3.11 3.6 Licensing Objective(s) under which representations were made |
|
3.7 Parties/Representatives and Witnesses present 3.11 |
Responsible Authorities
Karen Woods, Trading Standards PC Grahame Robinson, Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Licence Holder and Representative
Mr Ghulam Jaferi, Licence Holder Mr Jamal Khalil, Licence Holder Representative
|
3.8 Written Representations |
Responsible Authorities
Consideration was given to the written representation from Public Health, attached to the report at Appendix D.
|
3.9 Facts/Issues in Dispute |
Issue 1
Whether the update of the premises license conditions would further support the ‘Prevention of Crime and Disorder’ Licensing Objective.
|
3.10 Oral Representations |
The Regulator Officer addressed the Sub-Committee and outlined the main points with regards to the application. The key points raised in the address included the administrative error raised in paragraph 2.2 and 2.3 of the report, in relation to a minor variation of conditions the licensing objection of ‘Prevention of Crime and Disorder’.
Responsible Authority – Trading Standards
Karen Woods, Trading Standards, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points raised during her address, and following questions from the Sub-Committee were as follows:
Licence Holder & Licence Holder Representative
Mr Jaferi, the Licence Holder, and Mr Khalil, the Licence Holder representative, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points raised during his address, and following questions from the Sub-Committee, were as follows:
It was clarified by Karen Woods, Trading Standards, that there had been previous prosecutions against the premise regarding out of date food. Mr Jaferi had been the Licence Holder, however sufficient time had passed for this not to be relevant to the review.
The Regulatory Officer explained that extra conditions had been added to the premise licence after a failed test purchase for underage sales. No prosecution had arisen as the failure was part of a ‘three strikes’ policy, and was the ‘first strike’. The Licence Holder had then submitted further conditions, however an administrative error meant that these had not been added to the premise licence.
Responsible Authority – Cambridgeshire Constabulary
PC Grahame Robinson, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points raised during his address, and following questions from the Sub-Committee, were as follows:
Summing up
Parties were given the opportunity to summarise their submissions.
Licensing Authority
The Regulatory Officer reiterated that the Sub-Committee needed to consider the issues relevant to the Licensing Objective. It was also noted that although the Licence Holder was not present in the shop on the occasions in question, he had employed those individuals that were present.
Licence Holder & Licence Holder Representative
The Licence Holder Representative restated that the Licence Holder was not present during the incidents referred to in the review. He had accepted responsibility. It was suggested that the licensing objectives would not be put at risk if the premise licence was maintain, as the Licence Holder would work more closely with the Licensing Authority. A revocation of the licence would result in the loss of the Licence Holder’s livelihood.
The Licence Holder Representative urged the Sub-Committee to either add further conditions to the premises licence or impose a temporary suspension of the premises licence, rather than revocation.
|
3.11 Decision |
The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence put before it and also took into account the contents of the application and all representations and submissions made in relation to it. The Sub-Committee found as follows:-
In their deliberations, the Sub-Committee considered: · The Government Guidance and the Council’s own statement of Licensing Policy which reflected the Government Guidance; · Representations in writing and those made to the Sub-Committee at the hearing from all parties; · The letter from the licence holder dated October; · The newspaper reports kindly submitted by the licence holder’s representative; and · The proposed conditions as an alternative to revocation.
The licence holder’s representative had informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Jaferi was out of the country from 11 March so was not able to monitor what was happening in the shop during his absence, and that it was the responsibility of the designated premises supervisor. However, Mr Jaferi was in the country on the 5 March.
The tobacco products were being sold by a member of staff without his knowledge.
The Sub-Committee disregarded the previous issues of the out of date food prosecution and failed test purchase, given the time that had elapsed.
The options available to the Sub-Committee were: (a) to modify the conditions of the premises licence; (b) to exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence; (c) to remove the designated premises supervisor from the licence; (d) to suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months, or (e) to revoke the licence.
It was the Sub-Committee’s decision to exclude from the licence, the licensable activity of the retail sale of alcohol as the Sub-Committee did not believe that any conditions would prevent further sales of such products.
|
Supporting documents: