Agenda item
Application to Review the Premises Licence for Tanim Superstore, 542 Commercial Road, London E1 0HY
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a review of the premise licence for Tanim Superstores, 542 Commercial Road, London E1 0HY. It was noted that the Police had triggered the review and was supported by the Licensing Authority. Ms Driver highlighted the fact that the current licence had been in place since 2006 and there had been no changes to the Premise Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor since then.
At the request of the Chair, PC Mark Perry, representing the Metropolitan Police explained that the review had been triggered as a result of large amounts of nitrous oxide canisters found at the premises with the intent to sell for human consumption. He stated that there was currently an on-going investigation regarding this.
It was noted that intelligence had been received that the premise was selling nitrous oxide, and following a visit, 13,488 canisters were found at the premises together with boxes of balloons. It was believed that the only reason for these were to sell to people to use as a drug giving a psychoactive effect and therefore undermining the licensing objective of crime and disorder.
PC Perry referred to pages 138 & 153 of the agenda, witness statements from Officers stating that there were bags made up with canisters and balloons ready for sale. There was also a customer who had been given her money back as she was not able to purchase the nitrous oxide due to the visit made by officers at the premises.
It was noted from intelligence reports that there were clear links to nitrous oxide and the premises and clear evidence that they were selling nitrous oxide to people for effects. PC Perry said that it made local residents feel unsafe and this was contributing to anti-social behaviour in the area.
He stated that the Premises Licence Holder had blatant disregard to his responsibilities as a Premises Licence Holder and failed to uphold licensing objectives and therefore not confident he would abide by any licensing conditions.
He concluded that together with the Police, the Licensing Authority and Public Health were also supporting the review. The Premises Licence Holder clearly demonstrates an inability to be trusted to run a licenced premise and to further protect children from harm, therefore PC Perry asked that the premises licence be revoked.
Members then heard from Ms Corinne Holland, representing the Licensing Authority, she explained that the joint visit documented in the Review to the premises on Friday 22 June 2018 clearly showed that nitrous oxide was blatantly being sold to customers, many of these were young persons. The fact that the nitrous oxide was being sold together with balloons was obviously a very clear indicator that the management had full knowledge of what they were being used for. The Police witness reports showed that many young persons were turning up to purchase these and disappointed when turned away.
She explained that the nitrous oxide was known to be harmful and can have serious health risks and it was the responsibility of the retailers not to sell these psychoactive substances for human consumption. It was clear that staff/management were deliberately selling these for that very reason.
Ms Holland stated that there was clear and blatant disregard to laws and regulations and therefore the Licensing Authority supported the review for the revocation of the licence.
At this point Members noted the representation made on behalf of Public Health on pages 202-203 of the agenda pack.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Robert Fitt, Counsel representing Mr Rezwan Noor, Premises Licence Holder, explained that this licence had been in place since 2006 and there had been no breach of the licence or its conditions. He agreed that nitrous oxide had been illegal to sell for human consumption since 2017 however Mr Noor was not aware of this.
Mr Fitt advised Members that their role was not to punish the Premise Licence Holder, but to aide and support the promotion of the Licensing Objectives. He explained that there was an on-going criminal investigation and this matter would be dealt by the courts. He went on to explain the other options available for consideration before considering revocation.
Mr Fitt proposed three conditions that could be imposed on the licence to address the concerns that had been raised;
1) Introduction of the Challenge 25 policy
2) All staff undertake training on selling alcohol responsibly
3) Litter check around the premises whilst the premises operates.
He stated that the visit on 22nd June 2018 was subject to on-going investigation and Mr Noor and his staff were not aware that at the time that it was illegal to sell nitrous oxide. He explained that they no longer sell nitrous oxide, don’t stock it at the store and this showed how responsible the licensee was and was abiding by the current licence. He explained that the department of Health and Standards suggested improvement works which had been complied with and therefore this went further to demonstrate that Mr Noor can comply with conditions and therefore there was nothing to suggest that he or his staff couldn’t comply with conditions.
It was noted that nitrous oxide was not being sold at the premises now and would not be sold in the future. Mr Fitt explained that the substance didn’t cause people to become aggressive or violent, and that it was mainly used by dentists, catering professionals, and midwifes. He urged Members not to revoke the licence and to impose conditions they felt necessary and appropriate.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the licence has been in place since 2006.
- That this was the first review application for this premise.
- Assurance was given that the premises no longer sold nitrous oxide and that these would not be sold again.
- That the Director of Public Health, in his representation had said that nitrous oxide can cause dizziness or affect judgement, which might make one to act carelessly or dangerously and put one at risk of hurting themselves, particularly in an unsafe environment.
- That the premises licence holder was not aware that it was illegal to sell for human consumption, however once it was brought to their attention they stopped.
- It was questioned if management/staff were unware that it was illegal to sell these then why were they behind the counter and being sold with balloons.
- That guidance states that revocation should be considered even in the first instance.
- That the revocation of the licence would have a huge impact on the business as the sale of alcohol contributed to a large part of the revenue and therefore the business may not be able to stay open.
In summation, Mr Fitt explained that the position was set out clearly, the nitrous oxide was no longer sold and this issues was subject to prosecution. Mr Fitt said that Mr Noor and his staff were capable of complying with conditions and proposed that imposing further conditions would be reasonable.
PC Mark Perry stated that there was a lack of ability to uphold licensing objectives and this impacted on residents, had health risks and there was no guarantee that they would not continue to sell nitrous oxide and therefore revocation was the only option.
Members adjourned the meeting at 8.20pm for deliberations and reconvened at 8.50pm.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits and the Chair stated that the Sub Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and had heard representation from Officers representing the Metropolitan Police and Licensing Authority and from the Applicant’s Legal Representative.
Members expressed grave concerns regarding the crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour linked to the premises. Members noted the evidence provided by the Police and the Licensing Authority.
Members were satisfied that there were no conditions that could be imposed on the licence to promote the licensing objectives as the mismanagement of the premises was evident. Members believed that there was no other course of action that would satisfy and maintain and uphold the licensing objectives as there was a clear lack of confidence in the Premises Licence Holder to uphold the licensing objectives.
Members reached a decision and the decision was unanimous. Whilst making the decision Members had regard to Section 11 of the Guidance Issued by the Home Office under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 in relation to reviews and in particular paragraph 11.28 of the statutory guidance relating to reviews;
“Where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective is being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence- even in the first instance- should be seriously considered”.
. The Chair stated that it was the Sub Committee’s view that there were clear problems of crime and disorder and issues of the protection of children from harm and therefore felt it was necessary and proportionate to revoke the licence.
Decision
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously –
RESOLVED
That the application for a review of the premises licence for, Tanim Superstores, 542 Commercial Road, London E1 0HY be GRANTED with the Revocation of the Premises Licence.
Supporting documents:
- Tanim Superstore cover report, item 4.2 PDF 111 KB
- Tanim Superstore Appendices Only, item 4.2 PDF 4 MB