Agenda item

To consider an application to review the premises licence for J K Wines, 5 High Street Bagshot.

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a review of a Premises Licence relating to Jaz and Kiran J K Wines & Foods, 5 High Street, Bagshot.

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 other relevant licensing legislation. 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…’

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 J K Wines & Foods, 5 High Street, Bagshot.

The Licensing Officer also 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.

Mr Rab Carnie addressed the Committee and stated the following:

·         On 9 September 2015 Mr Ravel Singh Motizada, the Designated Premises Supervisor, failed a test purchase when he sold alcohol to an under-eighteen year old girl. Mr Motizada admitted the offence and was given a fixed penalty notice.

·         On 19 November 2015, Mr Ravel Singh Motizada, the Designated Premises Supervisor, failed a second test purchase when he sold alcohol to an under-eighteen year old girl. Mr Motizada admitted the offence;

·         The customers on both occasions were asked if they were over 18 but no proof of ID was requested;

·         Surrey Police felt that there should be a review of the licence because it was a poorly run business, which could have a negative impact on the community;

·         It was requested that the licence be revoked or suspended, the Designated Premises Supervisor be removed and conditions updated as set out in the agenda papers.

Mr Motizada and his daughter addressed the Committee and stated the following:

·         Mr Motizada explained that he had not intended any harm to children and admitted human error;

·         Mr Motizada explained that he worked long hours and closed at 21.00.  He had chosen not to open longer as he was worried about selling alcohol late into the night and the impact it would have on the area;

·         The Sub Committee was advised that Mr Motizada had one member of staff who worked when he had to visit the cash and carry. Family members helped Mr Motizada at weekends and holidays;

·         Mr Motizada advised Members that the member of staff had been fully trained.

·         Mr Motizada advised that he was now  more vigilant when selling alcohol on his premises;

·         Members were advised that the sale of alcohol constituted 30-35% of total sales;

·         It was confirmed that CCTV had been in operation;

·         Members were advised that the last entry in the refusal book since the second offence had been 2 January 2016. It was started on 20 November 2015;

·         Challenge 25 signs had been displayed on the premises prior to the first offence;

·         The Sub Committee was advised that revocation or suspension of the licence would have a negative impact on the business.  It would also be difficult to find a different person to be a Designated Premises Supervisor as a new application would have to be made;

·         Mr Motizada agreed with the Police’s recommended conditions;

Mr Schmitz, a resident, addressed the Sub Committee.  He stated that he had known Mr Motizada since he took ownership of the shop and it had always been run reliably and responsibly. Mr Motizada had a good rapport with the community and if the licence was revoked the business would be in serious trouble which would be a loss to the community.

The Sub-Committee adjourned from 15.05 until 16.00 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(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Secretary of State’s Guidance under section 182 of the Act and Bassettlaw case.

·         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 Motizada (and those representing him) and Mr Scmitz.

Members recognised that the recommended sanctions by Surrey Police were put forward in the interests of the wider community as deterrence at least. They were also satisfied with the conditions as sought by Surrey Police as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives in issue.

The Sub-Committee had concluded that the premises licence should be suspended for two consecutive Mondays during licensable hours after the 21 day deadline for appeal rights.Conditions would be modified as follows:

·        An additional condition requiring training in respect of the CCTV to be added to the conditions of the licence; 

Regarding the following conditions sought by the Police:

·        Condition 2 – remove ‘appropriate’

·        Condition 4 to be amended to state ‘retain for 25 days’;

·         Delete condition 6;

·        The refusals book shall be bound;

·        Refuse conditions sought on  public safety and public nuisance but  retain condition 3 regarding  protection of children from harm;

·        The sub-committee will provide wording regarding Challenge 25 policy conditions it decided to modify

RESOLVED, that the Premises Licence for J K Wines & Foods, 5 High Street, Bagshot be suspended for two consecutive Mondays during licensing hours after the 21 day deadline for appeal rights, subject to the amended conditions in the operating schedule attached in the Decision Notice at Annex A.