Agenda item

To consider an application to review the premises licence for Everest Cash & Carry, 449 London Road, Camberley.

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a review of a Premises Licence relating to Everest Cash and Carry, 449 London Road, Camberley GU15 3JA.

The Licensing Officer presented his report to the Sub-Committee and notified representatives of the parties who had a right to speak at the meeting.  He referred Members to the Licensing Objectives and relevant licensing legislation.

All relevant parties present introduced themselves and stated their reason for attending the Sub-Committee.

The Licensing Officer noted that the application was for the review of the premises licence relating to Everest Cash and Carry, 449 London Road, Camberley GU15 3JA.

The Licensing Officer reported that Surrey Police contended that the carrying on of licensable activities at the premises could seriously undermine the following licensing objectives:

(i)               The prevention of crime and disorder;

(ii)             Protection of children from harm.

It was noted that the fourth paragraph of section 3 of the Licensing Officer’s report should read:

‘the Sub Committee must take such of the following steps as it considers appropriate if any, for the promotion of the Licensing objectives…’

The Sub Committee was advised that following discussions between Surrey Police and Mr Shrestha, both parties had agreed a resolution for the Sub Committee to consider, namely to agree the imposition of the suggested conditions and no further steps.

Mr Carnie addressed the Committee and stated the following:

·         Two test purchases were carried out on 9 September 2015 and 19 November 2015;

·         Two 16 year old girls purchased some alcohol and were not asked for any ID;

·         Fixed penalty notices were issued to a member of staff on each occasion;

·         A review hearing had been called and it was requested  that the licence be revoked or suspended for a specific period, to remove the current designated premises supervisor and replace all conditions on the licence as set out in the application;

·         Following discussions prior to the hearing, it was proposed that the recommendations proposed by Surrey Police be amended to remove the revocation or suspension of the licence;

·         Mr Shrestha had been provided with a Trading Standards approved staff training package by Surrey Police which also included a refusal book.

Concerns were raised by the Sub Committee about whether the training material supplied to Mr Shrestha prior to the first offence, had been put into practise. In addition the Sub Committee was advised that staff were not trained in operating the CCTV.

Mr Shrestha addressed the Committee and stated the following:

·         Mr Shrestha requested that his licence not be revoked as the business was his livelihood; alcohol sales constituted 50% of total sales ;

·         Mr Shrestha admitted that there was a language and cultural barrier with regard to his staff members;

·         Staffing was adequate particularly as Mr Shrestha was in attendance on the premises most of the time during trading hours;

The Sub-Committee adjourned from 12.10 p.m. until 13.10 a.m. for deliberation.

Following deliberations on the application, Mrs James reported on the advice she had given to the Sub-Committee and that Members had taken into account:

·         Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Secretary of State’s Guidance under section 182 of the Act;

·         Relevant case law;

·         The Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy; and

·         The written and oral evidence presented at the hearing.

The Sub-Committee had heard evidence from the Licensing Officer, Surrey Police and Mr Shrestha.  

The Sub-Committee had noted that two breaches within 3 months was a serious issue and the responsibility for this rested with Mr Shrestha.  It was also noted that the training pack had been provided to Mr Shrestha prior to the test purchases.

The Sub Committee concluded that the premises licence should be suspended for one day during licensing hours on the first Monday after the 21 day deadline for appeal rights.  Members recognised that they were acting in the interests of the wider community. They were satisfied it was appropriate to modify the existing conditions of the licence for the promotion of the licensing objectives in issue. The agreement between the two parties was noted.

The public safety conditions and the Police recommendation in their application to revoke the licence and suspend the current designated premises should be rejected and condition 1 under Crime and Disorder was to be reworded as follows:

A personal licence holder will always be present at the premises during the hours that the premises are licensed to sell alcohol subject to:

i) upon the cessation of a person engaged as a member of staff holding a personal licence and working at the premises:

ii)     the Designated Premises Supervisor shall notify the police of that person’s departure within 48 hours of that event and;

iii)    there shall be up to 8 weeks permitted to allow for the process of engaging a replacement member of staff as a qualified personal licence holder to take place and;

iv)   the police will grant an extension of time for the recruitment of such replacement member of staff as a personal licence holder where there is evidence that a delay in the application process has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of such applicant.

RESOLVED, that the Premises Licence for Everest Cash and Carry, 449 London Road, Camberley GU15 3JA, be suspended for the licensing hours on the first Monday after the appeals deadline, subject to the amended conditions in the operating schedule attached in the Decision Notice at Annex A.

Note: The Sub-Committee convened at 10.00.  The Designated Premises Supervisor, Mr Shrestha had not arrived in time for the meeting. He was contacted and he subsequently arrived at 11.00.  His late arrival was due to a misunderstanding regarding the start time of the meeting. He confirmed at the hearing he was happy for the hearing to go ahead at that time.

Prior to the hearing, Mr Carnie and T/Inspector Castell met with Mr Shrestha to discuss the review. Mrs James also spoke with Mr Carnie and T/Inspector Castell with the consent of Mr Shrestha and the sub-committee.