To consider an application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of Off Licence TQ Ltd, 15 Lucius Street, Torquay

Members considered a report on an application for a review of a Premises Licence in respect of Off Licence TQ Ltd, 15 Lucius Street, Torquay.

Written Representations received from:

Additional Information:

The Respondent circulated photos of the inside of the premises, showing a sworn off pool cue and the switch this was used to turn off which is too high to reach, signs and maps which are on the counter, training information and updated challenge 25 information.

Oral Representations received from:

Decision:

That the Premises Licence in respect of Off Licence TQ Ltd, 15 Lucius Street, Torquay, be revoked.

Reason for Decision:

Having carefully considered all the written and oral Representations, Members resolved to revoke the Premises Licence for Off Licence TQ Ltd as they could not be satisfied that the Respondent, who is the current sole director of the company that holds the premises licence, would operate the premises in a responsible and lawful manner and ensure promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

In coming to that decision, Members noted the Respondents involvement in the premises since 2015 which is throughout the period of time the Police and Trading Standards have had cause for concern, the information contained within the exempt report and the Police’s written and oral submission in respect of his suitability to hold a premises licence and the lack experience by him, in holding such a licence.

In addition, Members noted that changes to the company who hold the Premises Licence and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) appeared reactive to the Review application rather than considering the premises future operations and that the newly appointed DPS had recently applied for and been granted DPS status at another premises and his appointment at these premises, was only temporary. On the Respondents submissions, this temporary appointment was to allow time for a current member of staff who had been employed at the premises for 18 months to obtain a personal licence. In discovering that the proposed replacement DPS was in fact the daughter of the previous DPS and sole director and secretary of the company who holds the licence, Members unanimously voted in the lack of confidence they had in the ability of this person to implement the changes needed at the premises to ensure that the Licensing Objectives were upheld.

In noting the submissions of the Respondent and DPS in respect of the alcohol seized from a neighbouring premises when a search warrant was executed by the Police on the 4^th January 2018, Members were satisfied on the evidence of the Police that it was highly probable that alcohol without a UK Duty Paid Stamp was being sold at the premises and the reasons given by the Respondent were in their opinion, not plausible.

Whilst it was accepted that the use of the cut off pool cue could be used for the reasons given by the Respondent, this coupled with the CS gas canister found under the counter at the premises which resulted in a conviction of the previous director and DPS, gave Members serious cause for concern, given the Respondent and the proposed new DPS’s involvement at the premises during this time.

Furthermore it was noted by Members that despite being made aware of the Responsible Authorities concerns around anti-social behaviour and nuisance caused by street drinkers in the immediate vicinity of these premises and evidence that alcohol purchased from these premises was attributable, Members were alarmed to learn that the previous agreement given by these premises not to sell single cans of high strength alcohol, the Respondent, along with the previous director and DPS had made it known to the Police that they wished to renege on this commitment, due to the impact this had had on their business. This in Members opinion was not the actions of a responsible licensee, as profits were being placed above the importance of ensuring the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

In considering what steps had been put in place by the Respondent following service of the Review application, Members were concerned to note that in addition to the resignations and reappointments of directorship of the company that hold the licence on the 5^th April 2018 and the appointment of a new temporary DPS on the 10^th April 2018, any measurable change in respect of staff training by the current DPS appeared limited and in some circumstances, had only recently taken place. In noting the DPS intended departure from these premises; it was of great concern to Members as to the sustainability of this training once he had stepped down.

In concluding, Members found the submissions of the Respondent to be at times misleading and whether this was intentional or done so out of naivety, this coupled with their established concerns resulted in the unanimous decision to revoke the licence, even though what if any additional conditions could be added to the licence,  were carefully considered by them.