Agenda and minutes

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

RESOLVED THAT:

Councillor Johnson take the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence received.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest, registerable interest or other interest.

No interests were declared.

PREMISES:        European Supermarket, 14-16 Jackson Street, Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 3LT.

APPLICANT:      Trading Standards Authority

To determine an application for a review of a premises licence in respect of the above.

A representation has been received from the Licencing Authority. A notice of hearing inviting them to attend has been sent to each of them. If they fail to attend, the hearing can be held in their absence or adjourned.

The following documents are attached:-

a) Report of the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

At the beginning of the Hearing, the authority shall explain to the parties the procedure it is proposed to follow. The Hearing shall take the form of a discussion led by the authority and cross-examination shall not be permitted unless it is required to consider the representations.

The Chairman asked the parties in attendance to introduce themselves and then outlined the procedure to be followed. It was agreed that the maximum presentation time would be fifteen minutes.

The Licensing Team Leader presented their report, highlighting to members the history of the licence for the premises including transfers of the licence and amendments to the licence, Trading Standards involvement with the premises in relation to the sale of illicit tobacco and the Licensing Authorities involvement with the premises in relation to breaches of licence conditions. They were satisfied that the premise licencing review had been advertised as required. They set out the sanctions available to the panel and the nature of the appeals process.

In response to a question from a Member about who the licensee was in 2013, it was accepted that there had been a transfer of licence since then.

The applicant presented their report. They set out the history of licence conditions violations and the investigations by Trading Standards in the years from 2015. The criminality most significantly revolved around the sale of illicit tobacco on a plethora of occasions, and, less frequently, the sale of illicit alcohol, out of date food and the sale of alcohol to minors. The licence breaches entailed lack of staff training, a failure to maintain a log of alcohol sale refusals, and a lack of working CCTV. They concluded that this amounted to a history of organised criminality and persistent licencing breaches. The revocation of the licence should be seriously considered and that is what they were requesting.

In response to a question from a Member about whether the CCTV had ever been working, the applicant said they had no records other than when they had visited.

A Member commended the comprehensive report.

In response to a question from the Legal Adviser about whether the applicant was looking to prosecute, the applicant felt a licence review was a more proportionate response in this instance.

The Licence Holder inquired if there was any evidence of illegal tobacco sales since February, and particularly to a child, as had been alleged? They also said that they did not own the business in Leicester as suggested in the additional papers.

The applicant explained the complaints process: the allegation of sales to a child in April 2023 had not been further investigated as they were already dealing with existing allegations and moving through with the process. They did not tend to revisit complaints whilst going through the licencing revocation process. They added that the Licence Holder was still showing as the owner of the business in Leicester on Company’s House.

The Licence Holder presented their response. They said that they were responsible for ongoings since January 2021 only. They said they had been wrongly advised on the regulations around illicit tobacco; after the February visit when they found out the regulations, they had not been violating them. They had also been on the premises daily since February to comply with the licencing conditions. Since  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.