03
Prior to the formal commencement of the meeting the Sub-Committee viewed body cam footage provided by the Norfolk Constabulary showing an inspection at the premises was viewed by all parties prior committee. It was agreed by the police and premises licence holder that the video footage could be seen in public.
The Committee received and considered the report presented by the Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer noting that this was an application for a review of the premises licence, made under s51 Licensing Act 2003. The application was stated to be in respect of all four of the licensing objectives. It was noted that the current premises licence holder (PLH) had held the licence since August 2022. The premises were currently licensed for the sale of alcohol 24 hrs a day and seven days a week. The licensing authority had received a request to vary the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) yesterday. The premises holds the only 24hr alcohol licence in St. Peters Road. Ms Clare referred to the contents of the supplementary bundle and the amended and additional conditions contained, together with certificates of e-learning and the dismissal of a staff member. It was mentioned that some other shops nearby had a licence extending to 3am and there was a nearby licensed public house.
Councillor Tony Wright, the applicant for the review, then addressed committee.
He stated that the review application had been made on behalf of residents. As there were issues about public urination and litter, and noise in the early hours of the morning in this residential area (for example, people drinking in the street had been creating an annoyance in the area adjacent to 29 St. Peters Road). He also stated that whilst he was not able to verify that all complaints related to these premises a significant amount of nuisance arose from the selling of alcohol by these premises on 24 hr 7 days a week basis.
In response to questioning from Councillor Newcombe, it was noted that residents in St. Peters Road had complained of continually losing sleep. There were families living in the area and those living in Standard Place that provides care and support for mature individuals.
The Personal Licence Holder (PLH) via his agent stated that he had spoken with residents in the area who said that whilst there were issues with noise and litter this related not just the store at 29 St. Peters Road. The agent then inquired as to what evidence was available in relation to the noise and litter, in response Councillor Wright stated that residents had mentioned this premises with the primary issues being noise nuisance from persons drinking outside the premises in the early hours of the morning.
The Norfolk Constabulary were then invited to address committee.
The Licensing Officer, Michelle Bartram, then commented that the Constabulary supported the review as they had received numerous reports of noise and violence as detailed in the report. Many incidences happened between midnight and 7am. It was felt that management at 29 St. Peters Road was not robust enough (e.g. customers congregating outside the premises and causing nuisance). It was noted that there was already a specific condition on the premises licence that patrons must be discouraged from congregating outside the premises. In addition there are also concerns about persistent underage sales of alcohol and the poor management of this issue.
It was noted that on the 30th of September 2024. the Constabulary had been contacted by a concerned parent regarding a minor who had purchased alcohol at these premises, a review by the police of the CCTV footage had showed the youth choosing alcohol and drinking in the premises. Whilst the age check was flagged automatically by the cash register the sale had still taken place.
Members of the Police Licensing Team and the local beat officer had visited on 7th October 2024 to reinforce the message not to serve underage persons and address other concerns regarding the premises. During this visit it was noted that the store was very cluttered, and fire exits were blocked. A warning letter had been sent to the PLH about the underage sales.
However, despite this warning and visit, the police received another report of underage sales on the 2nd of February 2025. A parent had reported that her son, aged 14, had purchased alcohol from the premises and that no age checks had been undertaken.
The Senior Environmental Protection Officer from the Council's Environmental Protection Team, addressed the Committee. To promote the licensing objectives, he suggested that the supply of alcohol should be restricted between midnight and 7am, and alcohol should not be sold in single cans or bottles. On questioning by the agent for the PLH he confirmed that he had not visited the premises.
Mr. Satheeskumar the PLH, via his agent, then addressed he Committee.
The PLH had the support of many people, and a lot of customers behaved peacefully including factory/hospital workers, and the store catered for general shopping needs and not just alcohol sales. If persons arrived drunk, they would not be served and indicated that lots of antisocial behaviour related to customers from elsewhere and it was not fair to blame his premises and there is no evidence to support this (e.g. the local school had not submitted a representation). It was noted that those members of staff shown in the bodycam footage had been suspended and removed. The PLH was a responsible individual and when the February incident happened, he had immediately arranged for his staff to receive training. Taking away the hours or doing something else regarding conditions is not right as there is no evidence that these caused the issue of concern.
Mr Jetnor Fera (Supporter) addressed the committee, in support of the PLH. He said that he (i) wanted the shop to stay open and help with grocery shopping; and (ii) had not seen any issues with the shop and problems were not due to the licence holder.
In response to questions from Councillor Newcombe, the PLH stated that there were 200-300 factory/hospital workers using the premises each night and about half often would purchase alcohol and if alcohol sales were stopped it would be problematic to manage the operating costs for the business.
Councillor Newcombe asked whether the staff had understood their training as everyone trained had responded “refused to sell” which is not a correct answer. The PLH said English was their second language. He had checked their understanding by personally explaining things to them. It was noted that the staff worked 10hr. shifts and whilst there are two staff present, there was no manager/supervisor working the night shift. However, the proposed new manager will work at night as well as being present in the day.
Ms. Nelson (Objector) commented that (i) the e-learning certificate referred to by the PLH could be obtained for £10:00 and was a 30-mins e-learning program; and (ii) felt that this was not adequate training, with staff whose first language was not English.
The PLH suggested to Councillor Wright that complainants were not local to the premises and that there was no concrete evidence against the premises. Councillor Wright responded that the majority of residents complaining to him lived within 25 yds of the premises.
The Committee noted that Ms Nelson was a local resident in St George Road and had held a personal licence. She was worried that the store was not accepting responsibility. Ms Nelson also raised the matter in her written representation regarding her scratchcard being declared a non-winner by a member of staff. She was returned a scratchcard of a different design in the first instance. She did not believe the store should continue to have a licence; this was not safe for the community. The agent for the PLH commented that the scratchcard issue had been a mistake.
David Lowens (Solicitor) asked the PLH whether he could assist committee about what actions, if any, were taken following the 30th of September incident of sale to a minor. The PLH stated he had held a staff meeting and told the staff it could never happen again, and online training had been given.
The Solicitor then inquired if all parties had any remaining questions for any other party and none were mentioned.
The Chair then invited closing statements.
The Licensing Officer, Norfolk Constabulary, asked for the matters shown on the video footage to be carefully considered together with the interventions from her police colleagues.
The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer GYBC) stated that he had nothing to add on behalf of the Environmental Health team.
Councillor Wright mentioned the number of incidents at the premises cited by the police.
Ms. Nelson commented that whilst the PLH had frequently referred to his support of the community, the interests of the wider community needed to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Vethanayakampillai Satheeskumar (PLH) via his agent observed that in his experience the number of incidents mentioned in respect of this premises by the Norfolk Constabulary was a low number. The business would support the licensing objectives, new conditions had been put forward in the supporting documents and these would be adopted. The conditions regarding the management of children is robust. There have not been continual transactions to children and the refusals book and all public safety conditions have been implemented. The business is committed to collaborating with the local community and the wider community which the business seeks to serve.
David Lowens (Solicitor) then read out paragraph 11.20 of the s182 statutory guidance.
The Committee then considered their decision in private, and the public session was restarted for the decision to be given in public.
It was noted that the rights of appeal are set out in Schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003, to which reference should be made. An appeal may be made against this decision by the applicant for the review, the holder of the premises licence and/or any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application. Any appeal must be received by a magistrates’ court within 21 days of notification of the decision appealed against.
RESOLVED:-
That the Committee revoke the licence pursuant to the power contained in s52 Licensing Act 2003 (as amended).