Agenda item

The circulated report of the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services was received to consider an application by Northamptonshire Police for a summary review of the premises licence for Quality Food 4 You, trading as Braces News, 99-101 Montagu Street, Kettering.

 

Mr Howell, Licensing & Service Support Manager, presented the report to the committee, explaining the actions that the council could take as follows:

 

·         Modification of the conditions of the premises licence;

·         Exclusion of a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;

·         Removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence;

·         Suspension of the licence for a period not exceeding three months

·         Revocation of the licence.

 

He provided background information to the committee and explained that an application for summary review had been received from Northamptonshire Police which had resulted in an interim steps hearing being held on 29 November to consider the application. The decision made at that committee had been to implement an interim step to suspend the premises licence pending the full review to be held on 21 December 2023 having been satisfied that there was evidence of serious crime or serious violence as stipulated in the Home Officer guidance.

 

Subsequently Northamptonshire Police had received further information from trading standards that there had been a miscalculation of the number of cigarettes seized and the figure was considerably less than had initially been reported.  A further summary review was held on 15 December resulting in the suspension of the licence being lifted until this full hearing took place.

 

The chair asked the trading standards officer to explain the process involved in checking a premise.

 

She clarified that test purchases had taken place with a request made for cheap cigarettes, which had been provided by the shop worker, who had disappeared to the rear of the shop. On leaving the premises, the trading standards officer had clarified that the test purchase had resulted in them being offered cheap cigarettes to purchase and as such an investigation was carried out by Northamptonshire Police.

 

PC Bryan clarified that on visiting the premises to investigate further, neither the licence holder or designated premises supervisor were present on site. Two staff members were present, and he had investigated further and found a ‘hide’ in the kitchen area behind a cupboard, which was opened using a remote-control key, there was a light which illuminated the content, which contained numerous packets of cigarettes which were seized by trading standards. The quality and build of the cupboard were relatively new and the front of the cupboard was empty.

 

This find resulted in a request to the licensing authority for revocation on the basis that the premises had been used for criminal purposes.

 

The Police had also raised concern over the lack of a DPS at the premises and no proper staffing controls over the sale of either alcohol or cigarettes.

 

The chair invited councillors to ask any questions of clarification at this stage of the process.  None were raised.

 

Mr Craig representing the licence holder was asked if he wished to clarify anything. He asked PC Bryan to clarify where the cigarettes had been concealed.

 

PC Bryan reiterated that there was a ‘hide’ in the kitchen area which was partially hidden and contained the cigarettes.

 

Mr Craig explained that the licence holder/designated premises officer had not been present at the premises at the time of the test purchase and as she was looking after her seriously ill Mother. 

 

Whilst expressing sympathy to the licence holder, the chair reminded the committee that this was not a material factor to consider, as it was the licence holder’s responsibility to ensure that a suitable member of staff was on duty.

 

Members asked how long the licence holder had been involved with the premises.

 

Mr Craig explained that the licence holder had been at the shop for four years and had resided in the UK for 16 years.  Mr Craig would respond to most questions on her behalf.

 

The licence holder was asked if she was aware of the hide.

 

Mr Craig clarified that the licence holder was not aware of the hide and did not know that illegal cigarettes were being sold from the premises.  She had been occupied with looking after her relative and had therefore not been able to be at the premises as much as she would normally be and had relied on employees who she thought she could whole-heartedly trust. The kitchen had been upgraded when she took over the premises, but she was unaware of the hide. She had been considering selling the shop as she felt she had been taken advantage of.

 

PC Bryan stated that on arrival at the shop there had been two members of staff present and asked if these staff members were still employed.  The licence holder confirmed that they were, but the licence holder was unable to ascertain which member of staff was responsible for providing the cheap cigarettes.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked the licence holder to explain the set up of the shop   and asked whether she had been involved in the renovation of the kitchen and the building of the cupboard.

 

The licence holder said she had not been aware of the hide when she took on the shop and was not aware of the cupboard and had no idea what was hidden.

 

Councillor Bone asked how frequently she was at the shop.

 

The licence holder confirmed that over a two-year period she had been at the shop at some point each day though whilst looking after her sick relative she had not been as present as she would normally be.

 

She was also asked if there was any external access to the hide.

 

She said there was a door to the rear, but this gave access to the upstairs flat and was not related to the shop.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked what training her staff were given to enable them to sell alcohol and asked if they were aware of the responsibilities they had. 

 

The licence holder explained that she had trained her staff to ask and check identification, and they were trained on Challenge 25.  There was ongoing verbal training each month as a reminder of what they had to do. She also maintained a record of training. There was also a refusal book which staff were encouraged to use to evidence the checks they carried out and to detail any refusals.  There were lessons on how to use the till, how to fill shelves appropriately and how to clean and keep the shop tidy and safe for users.

 

The licence holder was asked to confirm which staff had been present at the site when the test purchase took place. The licence holder could not remember, and Mr Craig said he would advise her to keep records more diligently in future.

 

The chair asked PC Bryan to explain how the police had found the hide.  

 

He clarified that the hide had been located by shining a light into an exposed hole which was open to the environment. A mirror was used to see what was inside and the contraband was located. The police had accessed the cupboard and the cigarettes were found hidden away.  It was considered unlikely that the previous leaseholder would have left such stock in a hidden cupboard and this comment was accepted by Mr Craig.  

 

Members asked how the stock for the shop were purchased.  The licence holder confirmed that she had a supplier in the UK who she would place an order with and who would invoice her. It was also noted that illegal vapes were also on sale on the premises.  The licence holder was unable to provide the details of her suppliers for products purchased for the shop.

 

Mr Howell asked who the keyholder was.  The licence holder confirmed that it was the member of staff on duty who locked up and set the alarm.

 

PC Bryan considered that the premises had not been and were not being controlled property. Whilst the licence holder/ DPS did not need to be on the premises 24/7 they had a duty to ensure there was day to day control and that only legal goods were sold to the public.

 

There being no further questions the chair adjourned the meeting at 10.50am to enable the sub-committee to deliberate.

 

The chair reconvened the meeting at 11.15am and invited the legal representative to inform those present of the decision and the reasons why.

 

Decision:

 

Resolved that the premises licence be revoked with immediate effect.

 

Reasons:

 

(i)            The sub-committee could not be satisfied that the licence holder had adequate controls in place to meet the licensing objectives.  The sub-committee found that there had been no proper controls or adequate training in place of staff for the sale of licensable goods and tobacco products.

(ii)          It was clear to the sub-committee that there had been an attempt to conceal contraband using a sophisticated ‘hide’ on the premise solely used for the sale of contraband tobacco products for illegal gain;

(iii)         The sub-committee had considered the options available to it as detailed in the report;

(iv)         Having regard to the relevant guidance the sub-committee noted that a modification of the conditions of the premises licence can include the alteration or modification of existing conditions or addition of any new conditions, including those that restrict the times at which licensable activities authorised.

(v)          The sub-committee considered the four licensing objectives of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, Public Nuisance and Protection of Children from harm and considered that it could not be satisfied that the licence holder was able to meet the licensing objectives and expressed serios concerns regarding the suitability of the licence holder;

(vi)         The sub-committee therefore determined to revoke the premises licence with immediate effect on the basis that it could not be satisfied that the licensing objectives could be met.

 

 

The licence holder was informed that she had a right of appeal against the decision of the sub-committee.  Such appeal could be presented in writing to Northampton Magistrates Court, 85-87 Lady’s Lane, Northampton, NN1 3HQ within 21 days of the decision notice.

 

The chair thanked everyone for their attendance and closed the meeting at 11.30am.

 

 

                                                Chair………………………………..