Agenda item - Review of a Premises Licence Under the Licensing Act 2003,Casba 2, 8 Western Road, Hove

 

82.1    The Panel considered a report of the Director of Public Health requesting that they review the Premises Licence of Casba 2, 8 Western Road under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

82.2    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 and Mrs Mc Naught of the Licensing Section on behalf of the Licensing Authority in support of the Police’ request that consideration be given to revocation of the Licence. 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

 

82.3    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.

 

82.4    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.

 

82.5    Four 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 and the Licensing Authority on the grounds of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

 

82.6    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.

 

82.7    Councillor Deane reiterated her earlier comments in respect of Casba, 11 Western Road referring to information contained in the submitted paperwork in relation 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

 

82.8    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. Additionally, they had been further breaching their licensing conditions relating to CCTV by having none available on 01/01/2014, 08/02/2014 and 15/02/2014. The attitude displayed on 1 January 2014 when the premises was found to be serving on 3 occasions throughout the evening despite being given words of advice and being asked to close on the first two visits clearly showed a flagrant disregard by the management for their prescribed hours and the need to promote the licensing objectives. Warnings by the Police had been in addition to two formal warning letters and a verbal reminder of hours from the Council’s Licensing Department. There had been a further formal letter from Food Safety which although separate from the issues to be considered under the Licensing regime was a further indicator of the lack of regard by the premises for its responsibilities and gave rise to a lack of faith in the management.

 

82.9    Mr Savill went on to explain that notwithstanding these letters and verbal interventions, plain clothes officers had visited the premises and been served with food when a test purchase had been carried out on 8 February 2014 after licensable activity should have ceased and the premises should have been closed. Subsequently, the premises was again observed trading beyond their permitted hours on 15 February 2014 at which time a further verbal warning had been given.

 

82.10  Sussex Police had given consideration to requesting that further conditions be added to the licence but as the premises staff and management were not complying with the minimal conditions already on the existing licence this was not considered to be a viable option. Additionally, Sussex Police did not believe that a reduction in hours would address the problem given that the premises were continually and deliberately trading past the one hour they had Sunday-Thursday and the two hours they had been granted on Friday-Saturday by a considerable amount of time. On those grounds the Police considered that there was no alternative other than to request that the Panel give serious consideration to revocation of the premises licence of this venue. It was their contention that revocation of the licence was an appropriate and proportionate response to the repeated disregard of the hours on the existing licence and the additional public nuisance caused as a result of trading beyond the permitted hours. In this instance they were of the view that the disregard of the licence was far more serious than those in relation to Casba because they had been more sustained and had flown in the face of advice given by both the Police and Officers of the Environmental Health Licensing section. Direct face to face conversations had taken place with Mr Dema and the advice given and assistance offered had been totally ignored.

 

Submission by the Ward Councillor

 

82.11  Councillor Mac Cafferty confirmed that he was in attendance in his capacity as one of the Local Ward Councillors for the Brunswick and Adelaide Ward, and on behalf of the two local residents associations. He confirmed that he fully supported the request by the Police that the licence for these premises be revoked for repeatedly operating beyond their permitted hours. As a result of his work the Local Action Team he was aware that anti-social behaviour and fear of it, particularly at night was a real issue of concern for local residents. The gate which had been erected at Farman Street near to these licensed premises in order to address late night disturbance to residents among other issues. If premises did not adhere to their agreed opening hours it gave rise to a greater risk of public nuisance and resulted in those travelling through the area on their way home to linger in order to buy hot food and in so doing to increase the risk of later night noise and other nuisance. The four licensing objectives needed to be observed for good reasons and in this instance they had been flouted repeatedly.

 

Submission by Environmental Health

 

82.12  The Licensing Officer Mrs McNaught stated that she was present pato speak in support of the request by the Police that the licence be revoked. She referred to the correspondence that had been submitted with the papers for consideration by the Panel indicating that she had written to Mr Dema on a number of occasions in response to complaints received in relation to premises opening beyond their permitted hours.

 

82.13  In answer to questions Mrs McNaught confirmed that she had met with Mr Dema in the Autumn of 2013 at that time she had explained to him  the nature of the offences that had occurred and the need for them to be remedied. She had left a business card with Mr Dema setting out her contact details and had sought confirmation from him at that meeting that he understood what was required. Mr Dema had also been invited to contact her if there was any matter of which he was unsure or on which he required clarification.

 

Submission on Behalf of the Applicant

 

82.14  Mr Dema stated that the current situation in respect of this premises lay with his previous manager, now released from employment who had been managing the premises on his behalf. Mr Savill queried why mr Dema had been unaware of the situation given that letters in respect of this matter had been addressed to him and sent to his home address. Mr Dems stated that as the letters had related to the premises he had not understood their importance and had forwarded them on to the manager.

 

82.15  Mr Savill inquired why if it was his business Mr Dema had not taken a more pro-active role, nor taken advice as to what his responsibilities  on taking on such a business were. Mr Deme responded that as he was only aged twenty three both of the Casba businesses were his first business venture he had only had them for about a year and was still learning.

 

82.16  Councillor Deane, the Chair asked how, given his lack of experience Mr Dema had raised the finance for these businesses and how he had become interested in taking them on. Mr Dema stated that his father had worked in one of the premises for 13 years. One of the businesses had been given to him and the other had cost £10,000 and had been paid for with family money.

 

82.17  Mr Savill queried Mr Dema’s assertion that he was unaware of what was expected given that he had received correspondence and advice from Mrs McNaught regarding his responsibilities in running the premises as well as from Police officers and also bearing in mind that Mrs Mc Naught had expressed a willingness to clarify or discuss any matter and had asked Mr Dema whether he had understood the matter.

 

82.18   Councillor Deane, the Chair asked Mr Dema whether he understood that responsibility for the manner in which a premises was run lay with the premises licence holder, also the need for the licence to be displayed at the premises. Mr Dema referred to the previous role of his manager and to the fact that he was still familiarising himself with the business. Councillor Simson asked Mr Dema whether he was aware of what the four licensing principles were and the need to comply with them. Mr Dema said he did no know what they were. Mr Dema had nothing further to add and there were no further questions so the Panel then moved to consideration of the closing submissions.

 

            Closing Submissions

 

82.19  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.

 

82.20  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.

 

 

82.21  Mr Savill made the closing submission on behalf of the Police stating that he had nothing to add except to reiterate that given the level of disregard and understanding of his responsibilities as a premises licence holder that had been demonstrated by the applicant he was firmly the view that it would be appropriate for consideration to be given to revoking the licence. As the Police and Environmental Health had sought to work with the applicant to no effect he had no confidence that other measures, such as a reduction in hours would result in compliance.

 

82.22   Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had nothing to add to his earlier comments although he considered that it was telling that the applicant had indicated that he had no knowledge of the four licensing objectives. He fully supported the Police’ position in respect of this matter.

 

82.23   The Licensing Officer, Mrs McNaught confirmed that there was nothing which she wished to add to her earlier submission, also confirming that she fully supported the request being made by the Police that revocation of the licence be  considered.

 

82.24   Mr  Dema stated in conclusion that he had not realised the seriousness of this matter as he was new to the business having only been trading for a year. Staff employed at the premises who had not been operating it in an appropriate way had been dismissed. He wanted the opportunity to carry on trading and to put things right.

 

82.25  On returning following the Panel’s private deliberations the Chair, Councillor Deane explained that the Panel had carefully considered the review application, had read the supporting documents relating to this case and listened to all the submissions. The Panel had heard evidence from the licensing authority of repeated breaches of the licence conditions relating to licensing hours and CCTV. These breaches had taken place despite repeated visits and warnings from police and the licensing authority and were deemed to be both wilful and persistent. Under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003, the licence holder was responsible for ensuring that a licensed business is run in accordance with the law.

 

82.26  The Panel had considered all the options available to it in terms of suspension and modification of conditions, and did not feel that the premises licence holder had demonstrated sufficient knowledge or experience to operate within the licensing objectives following a period of suspension. He had failed to engage with either the police or the licensing officer, despite her considerable efforts. He showed no understanding of his responsibilities as a licence holder. It was noted that, despite being the license holder, Mr Dema had made no attempt to visit the premises during licensing hours, or to head or follow up the warnings given, placing sole responsibility in the hands of a manager.

 

82.27  The Panel had therefore decided the only option in this case was to revoke the licence and believed this was an appropriate and proportionate response to promote the licensing objectives.

 

82.28  RESOLVED – That the premises licence of Casba 2, 8 Western Road, Hove be revoked for the reasons set out above.

 

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