Agenda item

The Director of Environmental Services submits a report on an application for a new premises licence within a Cumulative Impact Zone, for Twoj Smak, 23 Narborough Road, Leicester, LE3 0LE.

 

Report attached. A copy of the associated documentation is attached for Members only. Further copies are available on the Council’s website at www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk or by phoning Democratic Support on 454 6354.

The Director, Environmental Services, submitted a report that required Members to determine an application for a new premises licence within a Cumulative Impact Zone for Twoj Smak, 23 Narborough Road, Leicester, LE3 0LE.

 

Members noted that a representation had been received in respect of the application, which necessitated that the application for a new premises licence had to be considered by Members.

 

The applicant Mr Kasraw Said was present with a representative, Mr Dean Carr, (Licensing Consultant for the applicant). Also present was PC Jon Webb from Leicestershire Police, Ms Justine Denton and Mr Ron Ruddock (Trading Standards) who had made representations. Also present were the Licensing Team Manager and Solicitor to the hearing panel.

 

The Licensing Team Manager presented the report. Colour photographs of the exterior of the premises were circulated to all those present at the meeting. It was noted that the representation from Leicestershire Police was made on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The representation referred to the Local Policy on Cumulative Impact for the Braunstone Gate area, introduced by Leicester City Council in February 2011, which created a rebuttable presumption that an application for a new licence would be refused. It was also noted that the representation from Trading Standards was made on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

PC Webb on behalf of the Police outlined the reasons for the representation and answered questions from Members:

 

·         The representation attached to the report was referred to.

·         The area of the Braunstone Gate Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) was outlined, and included the location of the applicant’s premises.

·         No reference had been made in the application regarding the CIZ, even though a professional licensing company had been employed to submit the application.

·         The applicant needed to demonstrate he had an understanding of the CIZ, and the premises would not have an impact on the CIZ.

·         The applicant had a conviction for possessing tobacco products which did not carry written and pictorial health warnings.

·         It was acknowledged the application was for two hours less opening time that was preferred by the applicant, and would close at .21.00 hours each day.

·         Near to the premises on Narborough Road, there were 13 shops and more than 20 restaurants and bars, that sold alcohol, and the figures did not include premises on the nearby Braunstone Gate and Hinckley Road.

·         If the Committee were minded to grant the application, the police had requested conditions be attached to the licence, and were listed in the representation.

·         The police asked the application be refused in line with the previous application.

 

Mr Ruddock and Ms Denton were then asked to outline the reasons for the representation from Trading Standards:

 

·         A copy of the representation was attached to the report, and contained details of dates visits were made by HM Revenue and Customs and Trading Standards, to two premises owned by Mr Said

·         Warnings for selling tobacco products which did not have the correct safety warnings were given to Mr Said.

·         Mr Said had signed a Senior Officers Formal Warning in November 2011. An interpreter had been present, so Mr Said had been in no doubt over what was said.

·         Further incidents of the possession of illicit tobacco products took place.

·         On 17^th January 2014, Mr Said received a conviction for possessing illicit cigarettes, and received a fine of £400 with £300 costs, and £40 victim surcharge.

·         Only one seizure of alcohol had been made, the others were for cigarettes.

·         If Mr Said had made an application for a premises licence not in a CIZ, Trading Standards would still have made a representation.

 

Mr Carr for Mr Said was then given the opportunity to respond to the points made;

 

·         Paragraph 4 of Trading Standards representation was disputed by Mr Said, as he had had confiscated wine returned to him, as he had a valid invoice.

·         The applicant had been caught with illicit tobacco, but it was not an offence under the Licensing Act. The Chair pointed out that failure to pay duty on goods did fall under licensing law.

·         The applicant had applied for a licence previously and had been refused. The first application had not demonstrated the applicant’s understanding of the CIZ.

·         Training had been delivered to Mr Said and his staff. Mr Said now understood how licensing objectives operated.

·         The Baltic Store owned by the applicant was approximately 300 yards away from the new premises. Only two English products were stocked, and nothing associated with street drinkers. Products in this store were aimed at the Eastern European community in general.

·         95% of the stock in the new premises would be targeted towards the Polish community.

·         The applicant had consulted with police, and had reduced the applied for hours by two hours, and agreed to the requested police conditions.

·         It was believed that with the requested hours for the sale of alcohol, there would be minimal or no impact on the CIZ in what was an already saturated area.

·         A refusals register would be kept on the premises.

·         Staff would receive six-monthly training on licensing law.

·         Trading Standards had not brought the applicant’s other premises for a review, as he had not dealt with illicit alcohol.

·         The applicant asked that a licence be granted for the new premises, and licensing objectives would be upheld.

·         There would be space in the premises for the sale of cigarettes, and a 1.5 metre fridge for the sale of alcohol. 90% of the goods in the store would be groceries, with a butchers section at the back of the shop.

·         The application names a proposed designated premises supervisor (DPS), though it was suggested that Mr Said might take on the role of DPS.

·         There would be four part-time members of staff, who would all be trained in basic licensing law, and the identification of customers under Challenge 25. A record of training would be kept.

·         Past illicit incidents had been due to ignorance on the applicant’s part.

·         During the last incident, the applicant was not in the country, and the dates on an air ticket could confirm this.

·         It was a member of staff selling the illicit cigarettes, who had since been dismissed. The applicant was a responsible business man who wanted to move forward with his business.

·         The applicant understood that further incidents could mean the loss of his licence.

·         It was confirmed that Mr Said had signed a statement when questioned, in the presence of an interpreter.

 

All parties were then given the opportunity to sum up their positions and make any final comments.

 

The Police said the application was for premises in a CIZ. There were 13 current alcohol licences in the small area, not including licences on the streets adjacent to the CIZ, and it was the panel’s decision as to whether they believed another licence in the area would have impact on the saturation area. The police added that the representation related to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, and they believed the applicant’s past conviction was relevant to the application.

 

Mr Rudduck supported the Police and had concerns the licensing objectives would not be complied with. Trading Standards asked for a refusal of the application.

 

Mr Carr for Mr Said informed the meeting there was a premises in the CIZ that was already licensed but had never opened. Mr Said wanted to prove he was a responsible retailer, and move on with the applied for licence.

 

The Licensing Team Manager said there was a potential change of DPS to the premises, but any changes would go through the appropriate procedure and could be objected to.

 

Prior to deliberation, the Solicitor to the hearing panel advised Members of options available to them in making a decision. Members were also advised of the relevant policy and statutory guidance that needed to be taken into account when making their decisions.

 

The Licensing Team Manager, the Solicitor to the hearing panel, Mr Said, Mr Carr, Mr Ruddock, Ms Denton and PC Webb then withdrew from the meeting.

 

Members gave the application full and detailed consideration.

 

The Solicitor to the hearing panel was re-called to advise the Members on the wording of their decision.

 

The Licensing Team Manager, the Solicitor to the hearing panel, Mr Said, Mr Carr, Mr Ruddock, Ms Denton and PC Webb then returned to the meeting.

 

Members gave the application full and detailed consideration.

 

The Chair informed everyone present that the Solicitor to the hearing panel had been re-called to advise the Members on the wording of their decision.

 

RESOLVED:

that the application for a new premises licence within Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) be refused.

 

The Committee said they were not convinced that the application would not contribute to the saturation of premises within the CIZ, particularly in relation to the Licensing objectives of Public Nuisance, and Crime and Disorder.

 

Whilst the Committee appreciated that steps had been taken recently, there were still concerns about Mr Said’s knowledge of the responsibilities placed upon him by the Licensing Act, and in particular what would be required to operate within a CIZ.

 

The Committee were concerned that Mr Said did not understand that, as the proprietor, he had a responsibility to ensure his staff acted responsibly, and that being on holiday was not an excuse to act irresponsibility. The Committee took considerable time considering conditions that would satisfy them that the premises staff would act responsibly, but there were none open to them.

 

The Committee discounted the disputed information regarding whether wine had been returned to Mr Said. The Committee appreciated Mr Said wished to run a reputable off-licence from the premises, but they had concerns about his ability to do so.

 

The Committee noted Mr Carr’s assurances, however, they said he was clearly not the applicant and would not be involved in the day-to-day running of the premises.