Agenda item
Application for variation of condition 9 on the licence held by Sudbury Retail Ltd for the sale of alcohol at premises "Budgens", (959-963 Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2SF), pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.
Minutes:
Responsible Authority
Nick Mortimer Brent Licensing Police
Michael Sullivan Brent Licensing Police
Applicants
Mark Davoren Premises Licence Holder
Ryan O’Leary Premises Licence Holder
Decision
The Sub-Committee decided that the application for variation of condition 9 on the licence held by Sudbury Retail Ltd for the sale of alcohol at premises "Budgens", (959-963 Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2SF) be refused.
Informative
The Sub-Committee added an informative that in view of the number of personal licence holders within the management structure of this business, a staff rota should be in place which would ensure a licence holder was present during opening times, so there would be no requirement for every single member of staff to be trained.
The record and the reasons for the Sub-Committee’s decision are as set out below.
The application
The Sub-Committee has given careful consideration to an application by the premises licence holders, under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003, to vary the premises licence relating to Budgen’s 959-963 Harrow Road Wembley HAO 2SF, in that Condition 9 of the licence - A personal Licence holder fluent in English shall be present on the premises and supervise the sale of alcohol throughout the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol, be removed. Mr Mark Davoren and Mr Ryan O’Leary are the premises licence holders. Mr Chiragkumar Chapipaklal Ghandi is the designated premises supervisor (DPS). The premises are licensed for the provision of late night refreshment and the sale of alcohol Monday to Wednesday from 06.00 hours to 00.00 hours and Thursday to Sunday from 06.00 hours to 01.00 hours.
The police objected to the application raising concerns about the following licensing objectives: prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Police alleged that Mr Davoren and Mr O’Leary have failed to operate the premises within the limits of the licence and breached the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 namely no personal licence holder present on two occasions, challenge 21 Policy not adhered to, shop lifting and an assault. According to the Police, advice, and a formal written warning has not been heeded by Mr Davoren and Mr O’Leary.
The full details of the application made by the premises licence holders as well as the police objection amongst other information, is contained within the document pack attached to the Agenda for our meeting. This information is publicly available and is therefore not repeated in detail in our decision notice. Mr Davoren and Mr O’Leary did not respond in writing to the complaints or allegations levelled against them and their premises in advance of the hearing.
The hearing
Mr Davoren and Mr O’Leary both attended the hearing. Mr Chiragkumar Chapipaklal Ghandi the designated premises supervisor did not attend the hearing.
PC Michael Sullivan represented the police.
The decision
We have listened to all the representations and have read all the material.
We have had regard to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s own licensing policy.
We have taken into account our duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to have due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of our discretion on, and the need to do all we reasonably can, to prevent crime and disorder in our area and the misuse of alcohol.
We confirm that in making our decision we have sought to promote the licensing objectives.
We also confirm that we have imposed further regulation only if satisfied that it was necessary, proportionate and appropriate to do so and justified on the facts of this particular case.
On the facts of this application, it is particularly noteworthy that, according to statutory guidance, we should accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the Police unless we have evidence that to do so would not be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. However, it remains incumbent on the Police to ensure that their representations can withstand the scrutiny to which they would be subject at a hearing.
We found that the evidence submitted by the Police demonstrated that the premises have been badly managed and supervised by Mr Davoren and Mr O’Leary resulting in police interventions. Examples of eight shoplifting offences and an assault most of which could not be progressed by the police due to the shops CCTV system not working, the sale of high strength beer above 5.5%, not all alcohol tagged or alarmed, no incident log or refusal book related to crime and disorder associated with the premises, were given by the Police. We also found that there has been a flouting of the law. The evidence demonstrated persistent failures on the part of Mr Davoren and Mr O’Leary to manage the premises properly and responsibly. This is unacceptable and harmful to the licensing objectives.
During the course of the hearing we heard evidence from Mr Davoren that aside from himself and Mr O’Leary, the assistant manager also has a personal licence, that there are currently 12 members of staff, 7 of whom have a personal licence and that he is in the process of getting the remaining staff trained in order for them to have a personal licence. Mr Davoren stated that the cost of training amounted to approximately £300 for each member of staff, that the business had a fairly high turnover of staff and that if this condition remains on the licence it would be likely to have a crippling financial impact on the business which at the present time is not making any profit.
We took note of evidence from the police that Condition 9 of the licence was put in place in order to ensure the shop runs efficiently but that the number of breaches to date demonstrates a lack of management inside the premises. If this condition were to be removed we would not be confident that there would be a responsible person present during opening hours who would be able to up hold the licensing objectives.
We therefore refuse the application to vary the premises licence by removing Condition 9.
Informative
In view of the number of personal licence holders within the management structure of this business, we feel that a staff rota should be in place which would ensure a licence holder is present during opening times, so there would be no requirement for every single member of staff to be trained.
Furthermore, the training undertaken at the request of Budgen’s is not a substitute for personal licence training.
The effective date of this decision
This decision takes effect immediately.
Right of Appeal
The parities have a right of appeal to Brent Magistrates’ Court against this decision.
If you wish to appeal you must notify Brent Magistrates’ Court within a period of 21 days starting with the day on which the Council notified you of this decision.
Supporting documents:
- Variation - Budgens, 959-963 Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2SF, item 3. PDF 47 KB
- Budgen Application, item 3. PDF 806 KB
- Budgen Police Rep, item 3. PDF 148 KB
- Budgen Licence, item 3. PDF 90 KB
- Budgens OS Map, item 3. PDF 911 KB