Agenda item - Sky Food and Wine, 17 York Place, Brighton

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

99.1          The Panel considered a report regarding an application for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Sky Food and Wine, 17 York Place, Brighton (for a copy see minute book).

 

99.2          Mr Altun, Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and Mr Cimen, agent to the PLH, attended the hearing to make representations in favour of the application. Inspector Harris from Sussex Police, Mr Savil, Solicitor for Sussex Police and Ms Player from Trading Standards attended the hearing to make representations against the application.

 

99.3          The Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mr Whitelegg, began by summarising the application and noted that there was already a licence on the premises under the name of Mesopotamia, which had recently been reviewed at a panel hearing and was suspended for three months. The conditions attached to that licence were part of an addendum to the panel papers. Two representations had been received from Sussex Police and Trading Standards relating to Protection of Children from Harm and Prevention of Crime and Disorder. Mr Whitelegg referred to the Home Office Guidance: Problem Premises on Probation and stated that the panel needed to consider why a new premises licence was being applied for when one already existed at the premises.

 

99.4          The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr Whitelegg’s statement and there were none.

 

99.5          Mr Savil began his representation on behalf of Sussex Police and stated that a review hearing had been held on 1 June for Mesopotamia where the licence had been suspended. An appeal was submitted and on 19 June the licence had been transferred to Mr Altun. On 30 October the appeal was dismissed by the Magistrate’s Court and subsequently a new premises licence was applied for by Mr Altun. Whilst there was nothing in the law to prevent this application, Mr Savil did not believe this was the proper use of the Licensing Act 2003 and felt the application was merely to circumvent the current suspension on the premises.

 

                  Mr Savil stated that the original suspension had been proportionate and fair, acted as an important deterrent and helped to break the link between the premises and the availability of alcohol to under-aged people and street drinkers. The police were not confident that this break had been achieved and believed there were ongoing problems with the premises even after the review hearing. Notably, a condition had been breached regarding the display of high strength alcohol, which was still being advertised in a prominent position in the shop. Further problems included the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) not checking the refusals book, and the police were concerned about the staff selling alcohol, with evidence that one member of staff was telling street drinkers to hide the alcohol they purchased from the Police.

 

                  Mr Savil added that the new licence application was confusing and contradictory and noted several errors in the documents. He believed this was all evidence that the premises was still not being managed effectively and the police felt that further work needed to be done before the premises could confidently sell alcohol within the law again.

 

99.6          Ms Player began her representation and stated that she agreed entirely with the police representation and felt that it was important that the under the previous management there had been a notable failure of engagement with the responsible authorities, and this trend seemed not to have changed under the new management of Mr Altun. She was concerned that the same culture and practices at the premises were continuing and believed that the premises management and staff now needed to work closely with the police and Trading Standards to ensure they upheld the licensing objectives.

 

99.7          The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the representations from Sussex Police and Trading Standards and Councillor West asked why the police objected to the prominent display of high strength alcohol at the premises. Inspector Harris replied that in August a licensing visit had been conducted where it was found that alcohol between 9-10 per cent was being sold to alcohol dependant people. There were general problems in the area relating to street drinkers and anti-social behaviour and Inspector Harris believed this was encouraging criminal behaviour.

 

She added that the police would like to see the shop stop promoting this type of alcohol as prominently, as this was the biggest problem for alcohol dependent people. It was an offence to sell alcohol to a drunken person, but quite often it was difficult to identify if an alcohol dependent person was intoxicated. Inspector Harris added that the previous licence holder’s daughter was still working at the shop and had advised street drinkers to hide their alcohol if the police came, and whilst a condition had been added on the previous licence review to keep high strength alcohol behind the counter, it was found to be prominently displayed in the middle of the shop.

 

99.8          Mr Savil added that this activity and the breaches in the licence indicated the level of responsibility of the current PLH, and the police had very little confidence that the licensing objectives would be upheld. Ms Player added that it was well known that street drinkers were cooperating with children to supply them with alcohol and felt the link with this shop had not been broken.

 

99.9          Councillor Phillips asked if it was outside the responsibilities of an individual staff member to be able to identify and refuse sale to someone who was drunk and Inspector Harris replied that it was each person’s individual responsibility in the shop to ensure that they did not sell alcohol to drunken people. The police would prosecute on an individual basis if it were proved the seller had sold alcohol to a drunken person.

 

99.10        Mr Cimen noted that street drinkers were providing alcohol to children and asked if there was any specific evidence tying this shop to this practice. Ms Player said there was not, but there were existing problems in the area. Inspector Harris agreed that there was no evidence relating to this premises and the currently PLH.

 

99.11        Mr Cimen began his representation and stated that the current PLH had held the licence since 19 June 2009, and had been operating the premises until the dismissal of the appeal on 30 October 2009. The business had been sold to Mr Altun because the previous PLH understood that he could not manage the business properly and Mr Altun had taken on a premises with a history of problems. However, there had been no problems between June and October 2009 and Mr Altun had been a responsible licence holder. He kept all details of refusals made at the premises, details of staff training and ensured the premises was run according to its licence. When the premises reopened, Mr Altun would be responsible for selling alcohol and would be a Personal Licence Holder.

 

                  Mr Cimen believed the objections expressed related to the previous premises management and added that the shop had been visited several times since Mr Altun had taken over and no problems had been found. He stated that CCTV had been put in the premises, a Challenge 25 policy introduced and Mr Altun ensured that he was regularly on the premises. A new application had been applied for to create a clean break with the old style of management and if it was not granted it would act as a punishment to Mr Altun, who was not responsible for any of the previous transgressions.

 

                  Mr Cimen added that Mr Altun was happy to accept any conditions the panel felt necessary to impose on the licence and was happy for the Police and Trading Standards to visit the premises at any time. He stated that high strength alcohol would be kept behind the counter from now on and the premises was happy to use logo bags for customers to take alcohol away in, so that the establishment could be identified if there were any problems. He did not think there was a problem with street drinkers buying alcohol at the premises, and noted that all of the test purchases were related to underage sales of alcohol. Mr Cimen offered a condition to only sell alcohol over 7 per cent ABV after 22:00 hours.

 

                  He recognised there were some mistakes on the application papers, but also believed the police were disputing some conditions that were reasonable and appropriate, such as checking the toilets regularly for drugs use. He finally added that the panel should consider the history of management of the premises since Mr Altun had taken over the licence, which was without fault, before making their decision.

 

99.12        The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr Cimen’s representation and Councillor West asked why Mr Altun was applying for a new licence. Mr Cimen replied that Mr Altun was currently suffering from a suspension over which he had no involvement and felt he was being punished unfairly. He would like to start afresh at the premises with a new licence.

 

99.13        The Chairman asked why Mr Altun had appealed the review decision. Mr Cimen replied that he had appealed because the licence had transferred to a new owner during this time and he believed the decision was not relevant to the way he would run the business.

 

99.14        The Chairman asked how high strength alcohol would be dealt with at the premises and Mr Cimen replied that it would be stored behind the counter and only sold after 22:00 hours. The Chairman asked if Mr Altun was prepared to not sell high strength alcohol over 7 per cent ABV. Mr Cimen replied that Mr Altun was not responsible for the mistakes of the previous management and this would punish him unfairly. He offered instead to employ two Personal Licence Holders and to ensure one was at the shop at all times.

 

99.15        The Chairman asked how many members of the public used the toilets at the premises. Mr Cimen replied that they were not public toilets, but the offered condition relating to toilets was to ensure they were kept in good order. He noted that a change of layout and refurbishment was planned for the store.

 

99.16        The Chairman asked why staff were telling customers to hide alcohol under their coats. Mr Cimen replied that the staff member who had done this was no longer working at the premises, and none of the staff under the previous management would be working there. He added that staff would be regularly trained to ensure the upheld the licensing objectives.

 

99.17        Councillor West stated that there was evidence that the premises was not well run since Mr Altun had taken over. He added that there had been no attempt to engage with the police and Trading Standards and asked why this was. Mr Cimen replied that Mr Altun had fully taken over operation of the premises in August and between then and October when the licence was suspended there had been no problems. He added that any conditions the panel felt were appropriate to add to the licence would be acceptable.

 

99.18        The Chairman asked when evidence Trading Standards had of illegal sales still being made at the premises. Ms Player replied that there had been complaints from members of the public that the premises was still selling alcohol to children and to street drinkers. Mr Cimen asked if test purchases had been failed recently at the shop and Ms Player confirmed they had not.

 

99.19        Mr Savil asked whether Mr Altun knew the premises was under review when he purchased the shop. Mr Cimen replied that he did know as Mr Altun had agreed to purchase the shop before the review process was initiated.

 

99.20        Mr Savil noted that Mr Altun had take over day-to-day management of the premises in August, but the licence had been transferred to him in June. He asked who was responsible for the management of the premises during this period. Mr Cimen replied that the DPS was Mr Sekengok during this time, but Mr Altun had visited the premises regularly.

 

99.21        Mr Savil asked if Mr Sekengok was still the DPS and Mr Cimen confirmed that he was, although on the new licence application Mr Altun would be the DPS.

 

99.22        Mr Savil asked why the police had been introduced to Mr Sengoz as the manager of the premises in August. Mr Cimen replied that he had not been the manager at this time. He recognised that Mr Sengoz had still been attending the premises to finalise the last details of the business transaction, but confirmed he was not involved with and not working at the shop.

 

99.23        Mr Savil asked if Mr Sengoz’s daughter was working in the shop during this period and Mr Cimen confirmed that she was. He added that there was a need to some continuity whilst the transaction was being completed, although Mr Sengoz’s daughter no longer worked there.

 

99.24        Mr Savil stated that on 17 August Mr Sengoz’s daughter had told Trading Standards Officers that Mr Sengoz was not available because he was at the cash and carry. Mr Savil believed this indicated that Mr Sengoz was still working for the shop on this date and asked Mr Cimen to explain. He replied that there may have been confusion among staff members during this time given Mr Sengoz’s previous history with the premises, but reiterated that he was not working at the shop.

 

99.25        Mr Savil asked if Mr Altun knew who was managing his shop during this period and Mr Cimen replied that the DPS Mr Sekengok was running the premises.

 

99.26        Mr Savil asked why Mr Cimen was offering to train the staff every three months when the original licence condition was for training every eight weeks. Mr Cimen replied that the DPS would train the staff every eight weeks, but additional training would be organised every three months with a licence training company to ensure staff were fully trained.

 

99.27        Mr Savil asked if the plan submitted with the licence application was redundant if changes were being proposed for the premises. Mr Cimen replied that if the licence was granted they would submit a minor variation to the plans if necessary.

 

99.28        Mr Savil asked if the alterations were already underway and Mr Cimen replied that they would only begin if the licence were granted.

 

99.29        Mr Savil asked if there were any public toilets in the premises and Mr Cimen replied that the staff toilets were available to members of the public on certain occasions. Mr Savil asked why it was sensible to check the toilets for drugs when they were not available to members of the public and Mr Cimen replied that the toilets needed to be checked anyway and Mr Altun was happy to ensure this was a condition.

 

99.30        Mr Savil asked if any thought had gone into the preparation of the licence application and Mr Cimen replied that the agents prepared licences for several different types of establishments and there had been some simple administration errors on this licence application. He added that Mr Altun was working very hard to ensure his premises ran effectively and was well managed.

 

99.31        Mr Savil stated there were discrepancies in the conditions offered to the panel through the application and asked which ones were to be considered. Mr Cimen replied the conditions on the operating schedule were the conditions offered, but added that Mr Altun was happy to accept any other conditions the panel felt were appropriate. Mr Savil asked if it was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the conditions were appropriate and enforceable and Mr Cimen agreed to this.

 

99.32        Ms Player asked when the legal ownership of the business transferred to Mr Altun. Mr Cimen replied that the process was still ongoing but would be completed in around one month.

 

99.33        Ms Player asked who currently owned the business and Mr Cimen replied that Mr Bektesh owned the leasehold on the building, which Mr Altun was seeking to purchase. Mr Altun was the owner of the business from 2 July 2009.

 

99.34        Ms Player asked why Mr Altun was legally responsible for the business from June but had no involvement with it until August. Mr Cimen replied that he had been responsible for the premises the whole time, but took over day-to-day management from August.

 

99.35        Ms Player asked when training for the staff took place. Mr Cimen replied that Mr Altun had achieved his Personal Licence certificate in July, but the rest of the staff were awaiting training when the business reopened.

 

99.36        Ms Player stated that a test purchase had taken place in October and although ID had been asked for, when none was available the seller had asked the customer’s age instead. This indicated poor training. Mr Cimen replied that all staff would undergo training from a licensing agent once the business was reopened.

 

99.37        Ms Player asked what procedures would be put in place once the business was reopened. Mr Cimen replied that a training pack was available from Brighton & Hove City Council and a dual language training pack was available from the licensing agents that Mr Altun was using.

 

99.38        Ms Player asked what type of clients usually purchased the high strength alcohol in the shop. Mr Cimen realised that this was normally purchased by street drinkers but added that it was also bought by other types of customer.

                 

                  Mr Altun stated that he realised street drinkers and homeless people drank high strength alcohol, but added that the premises next door also sold high strength alcohol so they would purchase from them instead. He did not feel street drinkers were his problem and he did not sell them alcohol if they were drunk. He recognised the problems in the area but felt this was not his responsibility and that the police should be doing more to manage this. He stated that he could not refuse to sell alcohol to these people and could only help by trying to control the amount they purchased and drunk through his premises.

 

99.39        Mr Whitelegg began his final statement and stated that there were anomalies in the operating schedule. The suspension had been imposed in June 2009 as a result of serious offences at the premises and the applicant had stated that if the licence was granted he would operate during the suspension period. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of this licence application was to circumvent this suspension. He added that if this was the case then it would appear that the licensing objectives would be undermined and the panel should consider refusing the application.

 

99.40        Mr Savil began his final representation and stated that this was a shambolic application with the only intention of getting around the first licence suspension. The police did not believe the application would uphold the licensing objectives and they were not confident in the management of the premises. He asked the panel to refuse the application.

 

99.41        Ms Player stated that she fully agreed with the Police representation and had no more to add.

 

99.42        Mr Cimen began his final representation and stated that Mr Altun was fully aware of the conditions on his licence and would uphold the licensing objectives. He kept records of street drinkers using his premises and these were available to the police, and noted that the licence could be reviewed if there were problems at the premises. Mr Altun was a new licence holder and wanted to start afresh, with a new licence, and he asked the panel to grant the application.

 

99.43        RESOLVED – That the Panel have decided to refuse the application.

 

The Panel believe that the application is an attempt to circumvent the current suspension of their existing licence. The applicant has not presented a convincing case or demonstrated in actions how they will uphold the licensing objectives.