Agenda item - Review of a Premises Licence Under the Licensing Act 2003, Casba, 11 Western Road, Hove

81.1    The Panel considered a report of the Director of Public Health requesting that they review the Premises Licence of Casba, 11 Western Road under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.

81.2    Mr Savill Barrister at Law and Sergeant Morgan were in attendance on behalf of the Police. Councillor Mac Cafferty was in attendance in his capacity as a Ward Councillor in support of his own submission and those made by local residents’ associations. The Licence Holder, Mr Dema was in attendance accompanied by his fiancée Ms Bowden who also spoke on his behalf.

            Introduction by the Licensing Officer

81.3    The Licensing Manager Mrs Cranford confirmed that the Panel were being requested to consider an application for review which had been made by Sussex Police. The Police were seeking a review on the grounds of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. Further evidence to support the application was submitted to the Licensing Authority office and was attached within the revised Appendix E which had been circulated.

81.4    Sussex Police had requested revocation of the licence on the grounds that since November 2013 the premises had been observed breaching their permitted hours on five occasions and in view of the grave concerns they had in relation to the licensing objectives in relation to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, the Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety.

81.5    Three Representations had been received from Interested Parties from two Local Resident Associations, from Councillor Mac Cafferty a Local Ward Councillor for the Brunswick and Adelaide Ward on the grounds of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

81.6    The Licensing Officer confirmed that the powers available to the licensing authority when deciding on any action for this application which will conclude this hearing were:

·      the modification of the conditions of the premises licence (including the times that licensable activities can take place)

·      the suspension of the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months;

·       the revocation of the licence

·       or they can decide to do nothing.

81.7    Councillor Deane referred to information contained in the submitted paperwork made reference to food hygiene and other health and safety issues which had been observed and reported on at the premises stating that they fell outside the control of the Licensing regime. It was confirmed that was the case and that a raft of issues had been experienced in relation to operation of the premises.

Submission by the Police

81.8    Mr Savill spoke on behalf of the Police stating that they had grave concerns regarding the premises apparent disregard for the Licensing objectives. The Police contended that the management team of Casba (who were committing a criminal offence on every occasion they traded beyond their permitted hours) were not promoting the licensing objectives, specifically the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance. The premises were committing crime under Section 136 of the Licensing Act by repeatedly remaining open and serving hot food and drink after the hours they were licensed for. The premises had been observed serving on five occasions since November 2013. These breaches had continued notwithstanding that advice had been given, this showed a total disregard by the management for their prescribed hours and for promotion of the licensing objectives. The warnings given by the Police were in addition to a formal warning letter from the Council’s Licensing Department and further letters sent by the Environmental Protection and Food Safety section which also indicated an irresponsible attitude by the management to their responsibilities in running their premises.

81.9    Mr Savill stated that Sussex Police had given consideration to requesting either that further conditions be added to the licence and or that the existing hours of operation were reduced in order to address their concerns, but did not believe that pursuing any of those options would address the fact that the premises were flagrantly disregarding their existing terminal hour. In this instance the police considered that there was no alternative other than to request that the Panel give serious consideration to revocation of the premises licence. Sussex Police considered that revocation would be an appropriate and proportionate response to the repeated disregard to the hours on the existing licence and the additional public nuisance that was caused in consequence of trading beyond their permitted hours.

81.10  Councillor Deane, the Chair enquired regarding the number of review requests made by the Police and Sergeant Morgan explained that such requests were very rare in fact this was the first such request made for this type of premises which gave an indication of the seriousness of the breaches as far as the Police were concerned. The Police generally sought to work with premises in order to address any issues, regrettably it had not been possible to do so in this instance as there had been no contact from the Premises Licence holder prior to that days meeting. The effective management and supervision of a venue was a key factor in reducing crime and disorder, both within it and outside, this had not been respected in the case of this premises, only one condition had been imposed relating to the time at which the premises were supposed to close, notwithstanding numerous warnings and advice this condition had repeatedly not been met.

            Submission by the Ward Councillor

81.11  Councillor Mac Cafferty spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor also on behalf of the local residents’ associations and the Local Action Team stating that both he and his colleague Ward Councillor were aware of problems associated with that part of Western Road and with the problems associated the premises. He echoed the concerns expressed by the Police. It appeared that the premises operators had displayed scant regard for the licensing objectives this represented a major and repeated breach and on that basis he supported the approach that was recommended by the Police. It was very important that all premises in an area operated in accordance with their licence to ensure effective management of the area as a whole.

            Submission on Behalf of the Applicant

81.12  Mr Dema the premises licence holder was accompanied at the hearing by his fiancée, Ms Bowden who also spoke on his behalf. She explained that she had only become aware of the severity of the situation at the premises very recently, Mr Dema’s understanding of English had meant that he failed to realise the severity of the situation, now that he had grasped this measures would be put into place to ensure that he took a much more pro-active involvement in his business in future. Mr Dema explained that he was only twenty three years of age and had only been running the business for a year and wanted the opportunity to improve the situation. He stated that correspondence relating to these breaches had been sent to the premises rather than his home address and in consequence he had not known the full extent of the problem.

81.13  Ms Bowden confirmed that was the case and that measures had already been undertaken to address problems at the premises and a number of staff had been let go, he had not had control over staff members and would be visiting the premises more regularly in future. Mr Dema lived nearby and he did not want to alienate local residents, he had also invested heavily in the premises. Mr Dema refuted some of the information contained in the Police reports of incidents at the premises stating that he had not been there when they had taken place.

81.14  Councillor Simson enquired regarding the measures that were taken to ensure the identity of staff working in any premises. It was explained that those present were questioned as to their identity. Mr Dema stated that it may have been that his father had been present on those occasions when the Police had visited the premises. In answer to questions, Mr Dema explained that he had taken over the premises when it had become available. His father had worked at the premises for thirteen years and had continued to work there and to oversee the way that it was run on his behalf as well as carrying out other duties. Councillor Deane, the Chair asked whether Mr Dema would be able to ensure that his father would comply with necessary requirements particularly those in relation to the hour at which the premises should close in future. Mr Dema stated that he could not tell his father what to do, but he that although he was still learning the business he would take a greater involvement in future. Ms Bowden also confirmed that she would help to ensure that this was the case.

            Closing Submissions

81.15  In closing the Licensing Manager, Mrs Cranford confirmed that where the licensing authority considered that action was necessary under its statutory powers it could take the following steps:

·      modify the conditions of the premises licence (including the times that licensable activities could take place);

·       suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months;

·       revoke the licence

·       decide to do nothing.

81.16  If the panel decided to add additional conditions they should be clear, precise and enforceable as penalties for breaching the conditions of a licence were severe. The panel’s decision should be appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

81.17  Mr Savill made the closing submission on behalf of the Police stating that the request to revoke a licence for a take away were very rare, the Police always sought where possible to reach agreement with licence holders but in this instance the obfuscation of duties attendant on running a premises of this type had been repeated and advice given ignored. On that basis he considered that there was no option but to recommend that the Panel give serious consideration to revocation.

81.18  Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had nothing to add to his earlier comments except to re-iterate that he totally supported the approach that had been taken by the Police.

81.19  Mr Dema in closing stated that he had not previously understood the seriousness of any problems at the premises but would now try and remedy them.

81.20  On returning following the Panel’s private deliberations, the Chair, Councillor Deane explained that the Panel had listened carefully to all the submissions made and had studied the documentation. They had had heard evidence from the Police of persistent breaches of the licence relating to trading beyond its licensing hours. They had also heard from a local ward councillor of the negative impact of late night public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises.

81.21  The Panel considered these breaches to be deliberate in nature and the licence holder had not taken action to deal with the situation despite numerous visits and warnings, leaving the day to day management in the hands of others. The Panel had considered the options available to in response to the review, but in terms of suspension or conditions shared the view of the police that there was no prospect for improvement. The Panel acknowledged the support offered by Mr Dema’s fiancée, but nonetheless had little confidence that he had shown the necessary understanding or experience to meet his responsibilities as licence holder.

81.22  The Panel therefore concluded that, in order to promote the licensing objectives, they had no option other than to revoke the licence.

81.23  RESOLVED – That the premises licence of Casbah, 11 Western

Road, Hove be revoked for the reasons set out above.

Note: The Legal Adviser to the Panel explained that the premises Licence holder would receive notification of the Panel’s decision in writing with details of their appeal rights attached.