Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interests.

The Chairman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal period of time in which to present their evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be ten minutes.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report and highlighted background information and the grounds for the review.

In response to a question from a Member, the Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that she had made a recent visit to the premises and was satisfied that the Challenge 21 policy information was correctly displayed and refusal log was available to view.

Sergeant S Moore then presented the application as detailed within the report.

In response to a question from a Member, the Legal Advisor explained that the name of the member of staff who sold the alcohol during the test purchase was not revealed in the report due to data protection. However if the Members deemed it necessary to know who the person was to consider the application than they hearing could resolve to exclude the press and public, and go into confidential session. It was moved and seconded by Members to exclude the press and public for a short time.

After a short discussion it was agreed to move out of the confidential session and open the meeting back up to the press and public.

In response to a question from a Member, Sergeant S Moore stated there had been no incidents of anti social behaviour reported in relation to the premises since the last review application.

In response to a question from a Member, Sergeant S Moore explained that it stated in the interview papers that Mr Sidhu had trained all staff, plus there were posters erected within the premises, this made it most likely that the member of staff who sold the alcohol during the test purchase was fully aware of the Challenge 21 policy.

The licence holder, Mr Sidhu, addressed the meeting. He apologised for what had happened and explained that due to the failed test he had implemented further training. He explained the business had been run by his father for 28 years and he had been working there for 20 years. He had recently taken over the business and believed he was a good manager.

A Member asked Mr Sidhu what he would do to stop underage sales in the future. Mr Sidhu responded that since the failed test purchase he had undertaken further training himself and had learnt a lot of skills from it to manage staff with the sale of alcohol. He also explained that he was looking into hiring new members of staff and had installed more CCTV cameras so that he can monitor sales whilst at home.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Sidhu explained that the member of staff in question was very responsible in all areas of the job and he was not sure of the reasons for the sale because Mr Sidhu had seen him ask for ID on many other occasions.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Sidhu stated sales of alcohol made up around 20 percent of the total sales on the premises. Mr Sidhu circulated a copy of the refusal log which was kept at the premises.

Mr Sidhu gave a brief closing speech. Sergeant S Moore declined the opportunity to give a closing speech.

At 7.20pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 7.45pm to ask further questions before making a decision.

In response to questions from Members, Sergeant S Moore stated the following:

- there was not a set method of training for the Challenge 21 policy, all information was included with the posters and he did not believe it would take more than an hour for a manager to train staff on the subject.

- Training is usually monitored by members of staff signing an agreement to say that they have undertaken the training.

- Sergeant S Moore believed that the Designated Premises Supervisor course Mr Sidhu had recently undertaken was adequate enough to serve alcohol.

- The regularity of training did vary between different premises and that once every three months would be adequate.

At 7.55pm the Sub Committee adjourned for further deliberation and re-convened at 8.30pm.