Agenda item - One Step (Stop to Shop), 59A London Road, Brighton

Report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety (copy attached).

50.1    The Panel considered a report from the Assistant Director of Public Safety regarding an application for review of a Premises Licence for One Step (Stop to Shop), 59a London Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 4JE (for copy see minute book).

 

50.2    Mr Boddulri, Premises Licence Holder (PLH), Mr Baker from Lockett & Co Licensing Agents, Mr Underwood, Solicitor to the PLH, and Mr Kumar, Premises Manager, attended the hearing to speak against the application. Mr Savill, Solicitor to Sussex Police, Ms Irving and Inspector Harris from Sussex Police, Ms MacBeth and Ms Player from Brighton & Hove City Council Trading Standards attended the hearing to speak in favour of the application.

 

50.3    The Senior Environmental Health Officer began by summarising the application and highlighted a reference in the review application that dealt with the immigration status of the PLH. She asked the Panel to disregard this statement on the request of the Police as it had no bearing on the review application and was factually incorrect.

 

            Representations had been received from Sussex Police and Trading Standards based on three failed test purchases and concerns that the premises was contributing to alcohol related anti-social behaviour in the area. Sussex Police were seeking a suspension of the Licence and modification of conditions.

 

50.4    The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the Licensing Manager’s statement and there were none.

 

50.5    Mr Savill began his representation and stated that the premises had failed three test purchases, which were set against a background of poor staff training and management. The government viewed sales of alcohol to underage persons as a serious offence and even for a first review, revocation of the licence could be considered if the problem was felt serious enough. The Police were not asking for a revocation in this instance but did believe a suspension was necessary. A significant period of time for suspension of the licence was felt necessary to ensure that training of an appropriate standard could be received and fully understood by all the staff, and to break the link between underage sales of alcohol and the premises.

 

            The Police were also requesting a number of conditions to be added to the licence, which were largely uncontroversial and all necessary. Of particular note was a request to reduce the licensing hours from 24 hours to a terminal hour of 23:00. The Police felt this was necessary because the premises had been poorly run for a long time, and the longer it was allowed to stay open, the greater the potential for breaching their licence conditions or the licensing objectives.

 

50.6    The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr Savill’s representation and Councillor Lepper asked what alcohol related problems had been experienced in the area. Inspection Harris replied that York Place and London Road were anti-social behaviour “hotspots” where issues with street drinking and low level crime were experienced. It was a challenging area for the Police to manage and that they were working with Local Action Teams to improve the area.

 

50.7    Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if the problems increased during late night/early morning hours and Inspector Harris replied that the area was troubled by anti-social behaviour all the time, but the night time economy had difficulties with additional people leaving from pubs and clubs and making their way through the area.

 

50.8    Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if the applicants had understood the steps the Police had taken before submitting the review application and Inspector Harris believed they did so.

 

50.9    The Chairman asked if the Panel’s decision was to suspend the licence, when would this start. The Solicitor to the Panel stated that it would depend on whether the decision was appealed or not, but that both the PLH and the interested parties had 21 days to lodge an appeal to the decision.

 

50.10  Ms Player began her representation and stated that the premises had failed three test purchases despite training arranged by Trading Standards Officers. The full training had not been completed by several of the staff members and food safety issues had been highlighted at the premises.

 

50.11  The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms Player’s representation and Councillor Lepper asked for more details on the training sessions provided by Trading Standards. Ms Player stated that five staff members had attended over two sessions in May 2009 but some had not completed the training.

 

50.12  Councillor Lepper asked if training on the purpose of a refusals book was included and Ms MacBeth stated that this was not a formal requirement unless placed as a condition on the licence. She noted it was good practise to have a refusals book.

 

50.13  Councillor Mrs Theobald asked who made the sales for the failed test purchases. Ms Player stated that in January and May it had been the same staff member, but in March it had been a different one.

 

50.14  Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if these staff members had received training and Ms Player confirmed that they had.

 

50.15  Mr Underwood asked if the refusals book at the premises had been used several times and Ms Player confirmed that it had. He asked whether Ms MacBeth had witnessed a refusal in August and had signed the refusals book to this effect and Ms MacBeth confirmed that she had.

 

50.16  Mr Underwoood began his representation on behalf of the PLH, and stated that this was a family run business, but he admitted they had been lax in ensuring the licensing objectives were upheld. However, several new practices had been put into place and he felt there was very little more the business could do to ensure adherence to the objectives. Mr Underwood stated that both staff members who had sold alcohol to underage people were now dismissed and the Premises Licence had changed hands to a new owner.

 

            Many of the Police conditions that were requested were already in practise at the premises or on the licence, and the PLH had agreed to most of them. There was recognition that the operating style of the business needed to change and as such, Licensing Agents Lockett & Co had been employed for advice and training purposes. All staff members were now trained in licensing issues and many were Personal Licence Holders. Because of the measures put in place, Mr Underwood felt it was unnecessary for the licence to be suspended for any amount of time as the link between underage alcohol sales and the premises had already been broken by the change of management and operating style. He also felt that there was no need to reduce the hours of operation of the premises as there was no evidence of crime and disorder related to the premises late at night, and it would not be proportionate to agree to this restriction. Finally, Mr Underwood felt there was no need for Personal Licence Holder to be present during all sales of alcohol and this would be difficult to implement, but the premises was willing to accept this condition if the Panel felt minded to place it on the licence.

 

50.17  The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr Underwood’s representation and Councillor Lepper asked how many people in the shop had worked there under the previous management. Mr Underwood stated that the two staff members who had failed the test purchases were no longer employed at the premises.

 

50.18  Councillor Lepper asked how many people worked in the shop and Mr Underwood replied there were six. Councillor Lepper asked if this was felt sufficient to cover a 24 hour premises and Mr Underwood believed that it was.

 

50.19  Councillor Lepper asked if all staff members had now undergone training, and how many were Personal Licence Holders. Mr Underwood confirmed that all staff had received some form of training and three staff members were now Personal Licence Holders. Councillor Lepper asked if the owner of the premises was a Personal Licence Holder and Mr Underwood stated that he was not, but he held a BII certificate.

 

50.20  Councillor Lepper asked how staff members handled anti-social behaviour in the shop late at night and Mr Underwood replied there were always two staff members on duty at night to mitigate any problems.

 

50.21  Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if the training had been Trading Standards training and Mr Underwood stated that all staff members had undergone Trading Standards training and training sessions from Lockett & Co, but he admitted that some had not completed the Trading Standards training.

 

50.22  Councillor Mrs Theobald asked questions around the training provided by Lockett & Co and Mr Baker from Lockett & Co stated that the training consisted of reading a manual and guide book and then taking a multiple choice exam. All the papers were kept as training records and the staff members needed to sign a statement to say they understood the training and the regulations relating to licensed establishments.

 

50.23  Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if there was a problem with the staff members understanding the questions in English and Mr Baker stated he had no knowledge of this, and there had been no comments to this effect from Trading Standards Officers after the training sessions in May.

 

50.24  Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if racial or verbal abuse was suffered by staff members at the premises and Mr Boddulri stated that this was experienced at times in the premises, but not to the level that it needed to be reported to the Police.

 

50.25  Mr Savill asked for the management structure at the premises to be clarified. Mr Underwood stated that Mr Boddulri was the Premises Licence Holder, his daughter was the DPS and her husband was the shop manager.

 

50.26  Mr Savill asked if there was any connection between Mr Boddulri and the previous PLH and Mr Boddulri stated that he had no connection with the previous PLH. Mr Savill asked if he was involved in the premises before he took over the licence and Mr Boddulri stated that he worked there part-time.

 

50.27  Mr Savill asked Mr Kumar, the premises manager if he was employed at the premises under the previous ownership and he confirmed that he was. Mr Savill asked if there was a considerable overlap of staff members who worked at the premises both currently and under the previous management, and Mr Underwood confirmed this.

 

50.28  Ms Player noted that a refusal had been recorded on 24 August but the person working at the premises had asked for the age of the customer. She asked why this was and Mr Kumar replied that this was to fill out the refusals book correctly and to aid in training of other staff.

 

50.29  Ms Player asked if all age-restricted product refusals were logged in the refusals book and Mr Kumar stated that they were. Ms Player asked if the majority of the records related to tobacco rather than alcohol and Mr Kumar agreed that this was true initially, but now the refusals book was being used properly this was not the case.

 

50.30  The Senior Environmental Health Officer began his final statement and stated that DCMS guidance advised that a first intervention for single test purchase failures could be to remove the DPS/manager or restrict hours or licensable activity. A second intervention on more than one failure could lead to revocation. The options open to the Panel were to modify conditions on the licence; to exclude any licensable activity; to remove the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS); to suspend the licence for a period of not more than three months; to revoke the licence; or to do nothing.

 

50.31  Mr Savill began his final representation on behalf of Sussex Police and stated that most of the conditions the Police were requesting for the licence the PLH was not disputing. The Police felt that a suspension period was necessary and proportionate however, and were not confident that a simple change of management would be enough to ensure the effective operation of this premises in the future. There were outstanding concerns that many of the staff members who currently worked at the premises had worked there under the old management, and the Police believed that this would lead to a continuation of the old style of working. The reduction in hours was not a punitive request but based in the belief that if the premises was allowed to continue to trade for 24 hours, the opportunity to breach the licensing objectives would be increased. The Police believed that the premises needed to prove they were able to operate an effective and law-abiding establishment before trading for such long hours. Inspector Harris had nothing further to add.

 

50.32  Ms Player began her final representation on behalf of Trading Standards and stated that she completely supported the representation from the Police. She was very concerned with the overlap of staff at the premises and felt that a proper break with the old style of operation had not occurred. Ms MacBeth had nothing further to add.

 

50.33  Mr Underwood began his final representation and stated that the suspension and restriction in hours would act as a punishment rather than to correct any poor management currently at the premises. Measures had been put in place to ensure the licensing objectives were upheld in future, and this should be the Panel’s only concern. There had been a clear change in management and style of operation, and effective training had been completed.  Most of the conditions suggested by the Police were already in effect and others would be shortly. Mr Underwood raised concern about the CCTV condition and noted that the management may not be able to co-operate immediately in producing CCTV footage as it was kept in the flat upstairs, which some staff members did not have access to. All other conditions were undisputed.

 

50.34  RESOLVED – That the Panel had decided to take the following action in respect of the review application:

 

The panel decided to suspend the licence for a period of one month to enable staff to complete re-training with Trading Standards to the satisfaction of Trading Standards. The panel considered that this suspension would break a cycle of underage sales in a vulnerable area and protect the local community. The action was taken to promote the licensing objectives.

 

The panel also placed the following conditions on the premises licence:

 

1.                  The premises will operate a Challenge 25 police whereby any person attempting to buy alcohol who appears to be under 25 will be asked for photographic ID to prove their age. The only forms of ID that will be accepted are passports, driving licences with a photograph, or Portman Group, Citizen Card or Validate proof of age cards bearing the PASS mark hologram.

 

2.                  Digital CCTV and appropriate recording equipment to be installed, operated and maintained throughout the premises internally to cover all public areas with sufficient numbers of cameras as agreed with Sussex Police. CCTV footage will be stored for a minimum of 28 days, and the management will give full and immediate cooperation and technical assistance to the Police in the event that CCTV footage is requested for the prevention and detection of suspected or alleged crime. The CCTV images will record and display dates and times, and these times will be checked regularly to ensure their accuracy and will be changed when British Summer Time starts and ends.

 

3.                  The premises will maintain a refusals book to record all incidences of age related products being refused and refusals to persons who are drunk. This book is to be checked and signed by the DPS once a month and be made readily available for inspection by Police or Trading Standards when requested. 

 

4.                  A personal licence holder is to supervise all sales of alcohol between the hours of 1600 and 0000 hours (or close, whichever comes later) Thursday to Saturday inclusive.

 

5.                  All staff members will be provided with full training on alcohol sales before they commence working in the shop and serving the public. Training records will be held in the premises at all times and be available to the Police and Trading standards for inspection upon request. There will be a regular review of training by the DPS and re-training of staff every 3 months to a standard recognised by Trading Standards.