Greenwich Council

Agenda item

Euro Food & Wine, 12 Plumstead Road, Woolwich SE18 7BZ

Application to review the existing Premises Licence

Decision:

In reaching its decision, the Licensing Sub-Committee considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations, and Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the 2003 Act. In discharging its functions, the Sub-Committee did so with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

The Sub-committee considered the review application by the police, CCTV footage relating to incidents at the premises, all written representations, oral submissions, evidence from all interested parties, and noted the prohibition under a Public Space Protection Order.

 

Mr Sithamparappillai Thavaseelan, the licensee (Designated Premises Supervisor and joint licenceholder), attended unrepresented.

 

The Sub-Committee resolved to modify the premises licence, in the form of a reduction in the hours for licensable activity as follows:

 

Hours for licensable activities

 

Sale of alcohol, for the consumption off the premises, shall be

 

Monday to Sunday

09.00 hours to 23:00

 

Further, the Sub-Committee agreed the amendments proposed by Police in their review to add conditions to the premises licence and to amend and replace or delete conditions in Annex 2 of the operating schedule as follows:

 

Annex 2. Amend Condition 2 to read:

 

1.    All staff shall be trained in the law about the sale of alcohol. Such training shall include challenging every individual who appears to be under 25 years of age and to refuse service where individuals cannot produce acceptable means of identification; understanding acceptable forms of ID; and using the refusals register. Such training, including any refresher training, shall be logged and provided not less than every six (6) months. The training log shall be made available for inspection by Police and authorised persons (as defined by section 13, Licensing Act 2003)

 

Annex 2. Remove Condition 3 and replace with the wording:

 

1.    A CCTV shall be installed and continuously record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. The CCTV will cover inside and outside of the premises.

2.    All entry and exit points shall be covered by CCTV, enabling front identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall be capable of obtaining clear facial recognition images and a clear head-and-shoulders image of every person entering or leaving the premises.

3.    The CCTV system shall display on any recording the correct time and date of the recording.

4.    The CCTV shall continuously record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises.

5.    All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of thirty-one (31) days with date and time-stamping. Recordings shall be made available immediately upon request of the Police or an authorised person (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003)

6.    A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times the premises is open to the public. This staff member must be able to show a Police or authorised person (as defined by section 13, Licensing Act 2003) recent data or footage with the absolute minimum of delay when requested, and in any case within forty-eight hours (48) hours.

 

Annex 2. Delete condition 4 completely.

 

Annex 2. Remove condition 6 and replace as follows:

 

1.    A refusals log must be kept at the premises, and made immediately available on request to the police or an authorised person (as defined by section 13, Licensing Act 2003). The refusals log is to be inspected on a monthly basis by the DPS and noted in the log, a record made in the log of any actions that appear to be needed to protect young people from harm. The log must refuse all refused sales of alcohol and include the following:

 

a)    The identity of the member of staff who refuse the sale;

b)   The date and time of the refusal;

c)    The alcohol requested and reason for refusal;

d)   A description of the person refused alcohol.

 

  The addition of the following conditions to the Premises Licence:

 

1.    There shall be no beer, lager or cider for sale with a high rate of ABV than 6.5%, unless agreed in writing with the police Licensing Team and Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing Officers.

 

2.    All cashiers will be instructed to record in an incident book/register:

    

·        All incidents of crime and disorder occurring at the premises

·        Details of occasions when the police are called to the premises

·        Dates and times will be included as well as the identity of cashiers involved

 

The incident book/register shall be made immediately available on request to an “authorised person” (as defined by Section 13 Licensing Act 2003) or the Police.

 

The Sub-Committee’s decision was based on issues raised concerning the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee considered and had due regard to:

 

Paragraphs 11.1-2, 11.7, 11.10, 11.17-18, and 11.20-23 of the revised Section 182 Statutory Guidance, April 2017, when reviewing premises licences.

 

SgtSimon Henderson, for the Police, summarised the details of the application for review of the premises, confirming that it was submitted following incidents of serious disorder linked to the premises and that the current 24-hour permitted supply of alcohol contributed to the crime and disorder, and concern for public safety, in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

 

The police attempted to speak to the joint premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor; however, he was out of the country for an extended period and it was his son who was made to download CCTV footage for the area outside the hatch, through which alcohol is sold between 23:00 and the following 06:00 (Annex 2, Condition 4 of existing licence refers).  

 

CCTV footage was included showing evidence of serious disorder occurring outside the premises in October 2017 and July & August 2018. Footage showed that incidents related to customers of the premises under the influence of alcohol. These customers purchased further alcohol from the premises in the early hours and one of them can be seen obtaining a plastic drinking cup supplied through the hatch at the front of the premises.

 

CCTV footage taken on 24 July 2018 at approximately 04:25 showed an assault on a female when she was struck in the face by a male from a group and a few minutes later a fight took place involving a number of people within the group. A male was seen during this fight to be struck in the head with a glass bottle.

 

There were concerns staff at the premises were not making any attempt to call the police whilst the anti-social behaviour was occurring outside, caused by its customers.

 

The police had lost all confidence in the management of the premises to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Sgt Henderson highlighted there were issues with alcohol sales from the premises between 00:00 hours and 6am, when associated crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour occurred. 

 

He said regarding the four discsof CCTV footage that they “speak for themselves”.

 

He also said that he felt the licensee had disregard for the seriousness of why the review application was brought in the first place. He confirmed it was the first review of the licence.

 

The premises are situated within the Woolwich Town Centre Area, which is subject to a Public Space Protection Order. The PSPO prohibits any person from having in their possession, care or control an open container of alcohol in any public place within the restricted area, other than on licensed premises.

 

The premises are located within the Woolwich Town Centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). However, for the purposes of review proceedings, consideration of a CIZ is not applicable.

 

Maria Gartside, Trading Standards Manager for the Royal Borough of Greenwich, spoke in support of the application, emphasising concern at the number of serious incidents of disorder associated with the premises; with a 24-hour alcohol licence in place, it could give rise to proxy sales and under-age purchases.

 

The licensee was seen as weak in supporting the licensing objectives and Miss Gartside was in support of the proposed refusals register and reduction in hours of licensable activity at the premises.

 

Ward Councillor John Fahy spoke on behalf of Mary Shine, a resident of Drummond House, and he said that the premises caused problems for residents with street drinking into the night and impact on the town centre. He also said that he knew of no other premises in the borough with a 24-hour licence.

 

He referred to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. He said that the premises’ opening hours were a key issue and that the premises acted as a magnet. He relayed that whilst the licensee lived in Belvedere, the wellbeing of local residents was equally important.

 

Mr & Mrs Hunt, residents who live on the top floor flat in Naval House opposite the premises, addressed the Sub-Committee, saying that when they moved there it was assumed there would be traffic noise, but not human voices on the pavement – notwithstanding double glazing, it penetrates and wakes them up. They understand about daily noise.

 

They had no objection to the sale of alcohol from the premises, but were acutely aware of the effects of anti-social behaviour which was not confined to calling and shouting. They said it was a case of not knowing if disturbance was going to happen late at night or early in the morning and on which night. When it did occur, they had to decide whether to get up to it record in a diary and try to contact the Council’s Noise Team, who are already under resourced. This meant writing off the rest of the night and part of the following day.

 

Mr & Mrs Hunt added that that if the sub-committee did not decide to restrict the hours for sale of alcohol at the premises, the police would have to spread even more thinly; resources are diminishing and would diminish even further.

 

They acknowledged that from time to time some customers might misbehave, maybe a small minority, but it affected their lives and if they moved someone else would get the nuisance instead. The disturbance is not negligible; it causes stress and it is a breach of right to quiet life. It is clearly public nuisance and they had not seen other representations or anything to conflict with their own. They felt a limit on licensable hours at the premises was a fair solution and asked the committee to do that.

 

When asked by a member of the Sub-Committee as to the regularity of the nuisance experienced, they responded it was sporadic and approximately every four weeks. They had moved to their flat three years ago and struggle with the raised voices, arguments and the violence, leaving them exhausted and asking for a decent night’s sleep.

 

Mr Thavaseelan spoke to the Sub-committee and agreed that there is anti-social behaviour and noise associated with the premises. He said he had been trading 18 years with a licence and for some years running his shop 24/7. He said he could support the police with signs and put in more staff, and reduce sales at times. He said he cannot go out and say anything to customers, and was happy to go with what the committee decided.

 

He raised that it was a community issue and that cider drunk outside was not from his shop, and that other premises sell until 02:30 and alcohol is brought from there to outside the shop.

 

When referred by the Sub-Committee to the CCTV footage, particularly when alcohol was being served from the hatch, he responded that it was never sold like that and that there were no cups any more.

 

He confirmed that he had not seen the CCTV footage, despite it being served on him prior to the meeting.

 

He said staff did not call the police as by the time they came, the customers would be gone.

 

He was informed that he was required under the licensing objective to act to prevent crime and disorder.

 

He verified when asked that he was not always at the premises and not usually after 23:00 hours, only if he did not have staff.

 

He was asked what he had done to foster good relationships with his neighbours and he said that on receipt of a complaint, he had put up a sign and had talked to people.

 

The Sub-Committee expressed to him that the review application was serious and that the police had said there had been a lack of engagement from him.

 

To this he responded that his son had talked to the police and when pressed about him not watching the CCTV footage himself and the content, he replied, “I didn’t come across that.”

 

During discussion between the parties after representations had been made to the committee, Sgt Henderson said that the licensee had been out of the country for a couple of months, but there is another licensee, his wife, and that he did not think she had been away too, yet still there had been a lack of engagement. Mr Thavaseelan confirmed she had been here.

 

The Chair of the Sub-Committee expressed that where there are two licensees, the expectation is that certain things cannot wait for holidays and urged him to view the CCTV footage.

 

The Sub-Committee arrived at its decision having considered the police review application, CCTV footage of serious disorder and violence, and sales of alcohol from the hatch of the premises, and had given weight to the supporting representation from trading standards.

 

The Sub-Committee had no confidence in the answers from the joint licence holder and DPS to their questions. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the concerns of the police had not been taken seriously by the joint licence holder. The management of the premises had been poor.

 

If the applicant or those making representations are aggrieved by the Council’s decision, they have a right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court. Such an appeal must be submitted to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the date from when the appeal period is deemed to have started, which will be stated in the cover email or letter with the Notice of Decision

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

In Attendance:

 

Applicant for review       Police Sergeant Simon Henderson

 

In support of review       Maria Gartside (Trading Standards); Mr and Mrs Hunt; Councillor John Fahy (representing Mary Shine)

         

Licence Holder               Sithamparappillai Thavaseelan

 

The Chair welcomed all parties and ensured that introductions were made, all papers had been received and that all parties were aware of their right to be represented.

 

The Sub-Committee considered an application made by Sergeant Simon Henderson of Greenwich Licensing Police in relation to Euro Food & Wine, 12 Plumstead Road, Woolwich, London SE18 7BZ

 

The Licensing Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report. It was noted that the Sub-Committee had viewed the CCTV footage.

 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by the applicant for review, Police Sergeant Simon Henderson, who stated the reasons for the review. He emphasised that the licence holder had not engaged during the process. He suggested that a reduction in hours and conditions, rather than a revocation of the licence, would be a proportionate response to the review.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the applicant for review confirmed that it was the first review of the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Maria Gartside (Trading Standards) who stated why Trading Standards supported the review.  She indicated that Trading Standards supported the Police’s proposed amendment of conditions and imposition of new conditions.

 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Ward Councillor John Fahy speaking on behalf of a local resident who had made representation. The Police’s recommendations were supported. He highlighted the problem of street drinkers and their effect on the town centre. He commented that he was unaware of any other premises with such a 24 hour licence; it was felt that the premises acted as a magnet. He stressed that the wellbeing of residents was important.

 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr and Mrs Hunt. They indicated their support for the Police’s recommendations. They detailed their experiences of the disturbance caused in connection with the premises late at night and early in the morning. It was accepted that it was only a few people who caused a disturbance but it had an adverse effect. They commented on the limited resources of the Police to deal with the problems that arose in connection with the premises in the early hours.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr and Mrs Hunt replied that the nuisance was sporadic and unpredictable. It was less common in poor weather, and had been more common in the summer. The effect was they were left without sleep and exhausted.

 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by one of the licence holders, SithamparappillaiThavaseelan. He accepted that there was anti-social behaviour and noise associated with the premises late at night, and early in the morning. He contended that it was a community issue and not just his shop, and that the Police should act. He highlighted that people could purchase alcoholic drink from elsewhere, as evidenced by the refuse showing brands different to which he sold, and sit out outside his shop and drink.

 

Mr Thavaseelan stated he would accept a reduction in night-time hours. He explained he could put more staff in the shop and display signs. He said it was not possible for his staff to go outside and ask people causing a nuisance to move on.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Thavaseelan refuted that his shop had sold alcohol by the cup. Staff had been advised to call the Police if there were fights outside the shop; his staff had told him by the time the Police arrived the people fighting would have gone. He was not at the premise all the time.  With regard to fostering good relationships with neighbouring residents he said that following a complaint he had put up a sign requesting customers outside to be quiet.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee about his lack of engagement with the Police, Mr Thavaseelan stated he had been out of the country otherwise he would have attended to the matter. He stated he had not seen the CCTV footage.

 

During discussion of the matter the Licensing Officer stated when the CCTV footage was delivered to the licence holder. Police Sergeant Henderson explained that though SithamparappillaiThavaseelan had been out of the country there was another licensee on the licence, who had been in in the country but who had not engaged either.

 

Mr Thavaseelan commented that the other licence holder, his wife, had waited for him to return.

 

The Sub-Committee expressed concern that neither of the licence holders had watched the CCTV footage, and urged them to do so.

 

All parties, with the exception of the Legal Advisor and Corporate Governance Officer, withdrew to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate at 7.21pm. All parties returned at 7.39pm.

 

The Chair informed those present of the decision of the Sub-Committee, and stated that the full details would be given in the formal decision notice.

 

In reaching its decision, the Licensing Sub-Committee considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations, and Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the 2003 Act. In discharging its functions, the Sub-Committee did so with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

The Sub-committee considered the review application by the police, CCTV footage relating to incidents at the premises, all written representations, oral submissions, evidence from all interested parties, and noted the prohibition under a Public Space Protection Order.

 

Mr Sithamparappillai Thavaseelan, the licensee (Designated Premises Supervisor and joint licenceholder), attended unrepresented.

 

The Sub-Committee

Resolved -

to modify the premises licence, in the form of a reduction in the hours for licensable activity as follows:

 

Hours for licensable activities

 

Sale of alcohol, for the consumption off the premises, shall be

 

Monday to Sunday

09.00 hours to 23:00

 

Further, the Sub-Committee agreed the amendments proposed by Police in their review to add conditions to the premises licence and to amend and replace or delete conditions in Annex 2 of the operating schedule as follows:

 

Annex 2. Amend Condition 2 to read:

 

1.    All staff shall be trained in the law about the sale of alcohol. Such training shall include challenging every individual who appears to be under 25 years of age and to refuse service where individuals cannot produce acceptable means of identification; understanding acceptable forms of ID; and using the refusals register. Such training, including any refresher training, shall be logged and provided not less than every six (6) months. The training log shall be made available for inspection by Police and authorised persons (as defined by section 13, Licensing Act 2003)

 

Annex 2. Remove Condition 3 and replace with the wording:

 

1.    A CCTV shall be installed and continuously record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. The CCTV will cover inside and outside of the premises.

2.    All entry and exit points shall be covered by CCTV, enabling front identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall be capable of obtaining clear facial recognition images and a clear head-and-shoulders image of every person entering or leaving the premises.

3.    The CCTV system shall display on any recording the correct time and date of the recording.

4.    The CCTV shall continuously record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises.

5.    All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of thirty-one (31) days with date and time-stamping. Recordings shall be made available immediately upon request of the Police or an authorised person (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003)

6.    A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times the premises is open to the public. This staff member must be able to show a Police or authorised person (as defined by section 13, Licensing Act 2003) recent data or footage with the absolute minimum of delay when requested, and in any case within forty-eight hours (48) hours.

 

Annex 2. Delete condition 4 completely.

 

Annex 2. Remove condition 6 and replace as follows:

 

1.    A refusals log must be kept at the premises, and made immediately available on request to the police or an authorised person (as defined by section 13, Licensing Act 2003). The refusals log is to be inspected on a monthly basis by the DPS and noted in the log, a record made in the log of any actions that appear to be needed to protect young people from harm. The log must refuse all refused sales of alcohol and include the following:

 

a)    The identity of the member of staff who refuse the sale;

b)   The date and time of the refusal;

c)    The alcohol requested and reason for refusal;

d)   A description of the person refused alcohol.

 

  The addition of the following conditions to the Premises Licence:

 

1.    There shall be no beer, lager or cider for sale with a high rate of ABV than 6.5%, unless agreed in writing with the police Licensing Team and Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing Officers.

 

2.    All cashiers will be instructed to record in an incident book/register:

    

·        All incidents of crime and disorder occurring at the premises

·        Details of occasions when the police are called to the premises

·        Dates and times will be included as well as the identity of cashiers involved

 

The incident book/register shall be made immediately available on request to an “authorised person” (as defined by Section 13 Licensing Act 2003) or the Police.

 

The Sub-Committee’s decision was based on issues raised concerning the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee considered and had due regard to:

 

Paragraphs 11.1-2, 11.7, 11.10, 11.17-18, and 11.20-23 of the revised Section 182 Statutory Guidance, April 2017, when reviewing premises licences.

 

SgtSimon Henderson, for the Police, summarised the details of the application for review of the premises, confirming that it was submitted following incidents of serious disorder linked to the premises and that the current 24-hour permitted supply of alcohol contributed to the crime and disorder, and concern for public safety, in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

 

The police attempted to speak to the joint premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor; however, he was out of the country for an extended period and it was his son who was made to download CCTV footage for the area outside the hatch, through which alcohol is sold between 23:00 and the following 06:00 (Annex 2, Condition 4 of existing licence refers).  

 

CCTV footage was included showing evidence of serious disorder occurring outside the premises in October 2017 and July & August 2018. Footage showed that incidents related to customers of the premises under the influence of alcohol. These customers purchased further alcohol from the premises in the early hours and one of them can be seen obtaining a plastic drinking cup supplied through the hatch at the front of the premises.

 

CCTV footage taken on 24 July 2018 at approximately 04:25 showed an assault on a female when she was struck in the face by a male from a group and a few minutes later a fight took place involving a number of people within the group. A male was seen during this fight to be struck in the head with a glass bottle.

 

There were concerns staff at the premises were not making any attempt to call the police whilst the anti-social behaviour was occurring outside, caused by its customers.

 

The police had lost all confidence in the management of the premises to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Sgt Henderson highlighted there were issues with alcohol sales from the premises between 00:00 hours and 6am, when associated crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour occurred. 

 

He said regarding the four discsof CCTV footage that they “speak for themselves”.

 

He also said that he felt the licensee had disregard for the seriousness of why the review application was brought in the first place. He confirmed it was the first review of the licence.

 

The premises are situated within the Woolwich Town Centre Area, which is subject to a Public Space Protection Order. The PSPO prohibits any person from having in their possession, care or control an open container of alcohol in any public place within the restricted area, other than on licensed premises.

 

The premises are located within the Woolwich Town Centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). However, for the purposes of review proceedings, consideration of a CIZ is not applicable.

 

Maria Gartside, Trading Standards Manager for the Royal Borough of Greenwich, spoke in support of the application, emphasising concern at the number of serious incidents of disorder associated with the premises; with a 24-hour alcohol licence in place, it could give rise to proxy sales and under-age purchases.

 

The licensee was seen as weak in supporting the licensing objectives and Miss Gartside was in support of the proposed refusals register and reduction in hours of licensable activity at the premises.

 

Ward Councillor John Fahy spoke on behalf of Mary Shine, a resident of Drummond House, and he said that the premises caused problems for residents with street drinking into the night and impact on the town centre. He also said that he knew of no other premises in the borough with a 24-hour licence.

 

He referred to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. He said that the premises’ opening hours were a key issue and that the premises acted as a magnet. He relayed that whilst the licensee lived in Belvedere, the wellbeing of local residents was equally important.

 

Mr & Mrs Hunt, residents who live on the top floor flat in Naval House opposite the premises, addressed the Sub-Committee, saying that when they moved there it was assumed there would be traffic noise, but not human voices on the pavement – notwithstanding double glazing, it penetrates and wakes them up. They understand about daily noise.

 

They had no objection to the sale of alcohol from the premises, but were acutely aware of the effects of anti-social behaviour which was not confined to calling and shouting. They said it was a case of not knowing if disturbance was going to happen late at night or early in the morning and on which night. When it did occur, they had to decide whether to get up to it record in a diary and try to contact the Council’s Noise Team, who are already under resourced. This meant writing off the rest of the night and part of the following day.

 

Mr & Mrs Hunt added that that if the sub-committee did not decide to restrict the hours for sale of alcohol at the premises, the police would have to spread even more thinly; resources are diminishing and would diminish even further.

 

They acknowledged that from time to time some customers might misbehave, maybe a small minority, but it affected their lives and if they moved someone else would get the nuisance instead. The disturbance is not negligible; it causes stress and it is a breach of right to quiet life. It is clearly public nuisance and they had not seen other representations or anything to conflict with their own. They felt a limit on licensable hours at the premises was a fair solution and asked the committee to do that.

 

When asked by a member of the Sub-Committee as to the regularity of the nuisance experienced, they responded it was sporadic and approximately every four weeks. They had moved to their flat three years ago and struggle with the raised voices, arguments and the violence, leaving them exhausted and asking for a decent night’s sleep.

 

Mr Thavaseelan spoke to the Sub-committee and agreed that there is anti-social behaviour and noise associated with the premises. He said he had been trading 18 years with a licence and for some years running his shop 24/7. He said he could support the police with signs and put in more staff, and reduce sales at times. He said he cannot go out and say anything to customers, and was happy to go with what the committee decided.

 

He raised that it was a community issue and that cider drunk outside was not from his shop, and that other premises sell until 02:30 and alcohol is brought from there to outside the shop.

 

When referred by the Sub-Committee to the CCTV footage, particularly when alcohol was being served from the hatch, he responded that it was never sold like that and that there were no cups any more.

 

He confirmed that he had not seen the CCTV footage, despite it being served on him prior to the meeting.

 

He said staff did not call the police as by the time they came, the customers would be gone.

 

He was informed that he was required under the licensing objective to act to prevent crime and disorder.

 

He verified when asked that he was not always at the premises and not usually after 23:00 hours, only if he did not have staff.

 

He was asked what he had done to foster good relationships with his neighbours and he said that on receipt of a complaint, he had put up a sign and had talked to people.

 

The Sub-Committee expressed to him that the review application was serious and that the police had said there had been a lack of engagement from him.

 

To this he responded that his son had talked to the police and when pressed about him not watching the CCTV footage himself and the content, he replied, “I didn’t come across that.”

 

During discussion between the parties after representations had been made to the committee, Sgt Henderson said that the licensee had been out of the country for a couple of months, but there is another licensee, his wife, and that he did not think she had been away too, yet still there had been a lack of engagement. Mr Thavaseelan confirmed she had been here.

 

The Chair of the Sub-Committee expressed that where there are two licensees, the expectation is that certain things cannot wait for holidays and urged him to view the CCTV footage.

 

The Sub-Committee arrived at its decision having considered the police review application, CCTV footage of serious disorder and violence, and sales of alcohol from the hatch of the premises, and had given weight to the supporting representation from trading standards.

 

The Sub-Committee had no confidence in the answers from the joint licence holder and DPS to their questions. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the concerns of the police had not been taken seriously by the joint licence holder. The management of the premises had been poor.

 

The Chair announced that should the applicant or those making representations be aggrieved by the Council’s decision, they had the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court.  Such an appeal must be submitted to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date from when the appeal period is deemed to have started, which will be stated in the cover email or letter to the Notice of Decision.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: