Agenda and minutes

Reasons for the Decision

The Sub-Committee considered the application for review of the premises licence along with the evidence, including CCTV and body worn camera footage, together with written submissions, supplied by the Police and the Premises Licence Holder.

At the hearing, the Sub-Committee carefully listened to all the evidence that was provided by the parties and considered what steps would be appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives:

·         The prevention of crime and disorder;

·         Public safety;

·         The prevention of public nuisance; and

·         The protection of children from harm.

The Sub-Committee noted that, in particular, the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective was engaged by the actions of the Premises Licence Holder in the sale of alcohol for consumption on his premises as set out in the evidence.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has had regard to the Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (‘the Act’), the Council's own Statement of Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998 and particular attention was drawn to various provisions of these documents during the course of the hearing.

The selling of alcohol on the premises during the time stated, was in contravention of both a condition imposed on the premises licence and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’) (which were in force at the time).  Both of these are criminal offences by virtue of section 136 of the Act and Regulation 9 of the Regulations respectively.

The Sub-Committee were mindful that the Premises Licence Holder had requested a variation to his premises licence in February 2020 which sought to incorporate the outside space on the premises within the terms of the licence. Following this variation, condition 18 was imposed on the licence. This condition had been offered by the Premises Licence Holder.

With the condition’s inclusion being so recent, the Sub-Committee wished to convey its disappointment with the Premises Licence Holder’s submission that he was unaware of the licence restrictions imposed and accepted by him.  For such a well-established business to be pleading ignorance of its own licence conditions is far from impressive.

The Sub-Committee heard that the premises had been owned by the Premises Licence Holder’s family for nearly forty years and the Premises Licence Holder had been running the premises for over half of this time.

The Sub-Committee heard that there had not been any formal enforcement action taken in respect of the premises previously, nor had there ever been a previous application for review of the licence. There was no evidence presented to suggest that the Premises Licence Holder had ever been given a formal warning in relation to breaches of the licence conditions, the Act more generally, or the Regulations, prior to the Police visit on 25 April 2020.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Licensing Authority had not made representations in support of the application for review, nor had any of the other responsible authorities or members of the public.

However, the action taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.