To consider an application for the review of a Premises Licence in respect of Pal Food & Wine, 397 Oxford Road, Reading RG30 1HA.

The Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services submitted a report on an application for a review of Premises Licence in respect of Pal Food & Wine, 397 Oxford Road, Reading, RG30 1HA.  The application for review had been submitted by the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, in its capacity as a named responsible authority, following a combination of criminal activity including the sale of illegal alcohol and tobacco and a number of licence condition breaches uncovered during inspections of the premises.

The application sought for the Premises Licence to be revoked as the only appropriate and proportionate step to promote the licensing objectives and safeguard the public.

A copy of the review application was attached to the report at Appendix I.  This set out details of the breaches of condition and criminal activity which had been observed during inspections carried out on 31 March 2014, 3 September 204, 11 September 2014, 3 November 2014, 1 May 2015, 17 February 2017, 24 July 2017, 1 October 2018, 26 February 2019, 14 March 2019 and 1 April 2019.

The report stated that representations had been received from Thames Valley Police and the Reading Borough Council Licensing Team, which were attached to the report at Appendices II and III respectively.

The report stated that the Premises Licence Holder was Mr Aman Singh Chopra.  The current Premises Licence, a copy of which was attached to the report at Appendix IV, permitted the following:

Hours for the Sale by Retail of Alcohol

Monday to Sunday                                       0600 hours until 2300 hours

Hours the Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday                                       0600 hours until 2300 hours

A plan showing the location of the premises and surrounding streets was attached to the report at Appendix V.

The report stated that in determining the application the Licensing Authority had a duty to carry out its functions with a view to promoting the four licensing objectives, as follows:

• The prevention of crime and disorder

·         Public safety

·         The prevention of public nuisance

·         The protection of children from harm

The report stated further that in determining the application the Licensing Authority must also have regard to the representations received, the Licensing Authority’s statement of licensing policy and any relevant section of the statutory guidance to licensing authorities.  Further, in determining the application the Licensing Authority could take such of the following steps as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

• Take no further action

·         To issue formal warnings to the premises supervisor and/or premises licence holder

·         Modify the conditions of the licence (including, but not limited to hours of operation of licensable activities)

·         Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence

·         Remove the designated premises licence supervisor

·         Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months

·         Revoke the licence

(Where the Sub-Committee took a step mentioned in the third and fourth bullet points above it may provide that the modification or exclusion was to have effect for a period not exceeding three months or permanently.)

The report set out paragraphs 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 9.12, 9.13, 9.31, 9.38, 9.42, 9.43, 11.1, 11.2, 11.6, 11.10, 11.16 to 11.18 and 11.24 to 11.28 of the Amended Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (April 2018).  The report also set out paragraphs 1.5, 7.15.1, 10.5.1, 15.1.1 and 15.3.1 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and paragraph 10.7.1 was read out during the hearing.

Mr A S Chopra, the Designated Premises Supervisor and the Premises Licence holder, and his representatives Mr Surendra Panchal and Mr Tom Griffiths, were present at the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee.  Mr Griffiths proposed that the licence be suspended for a period of not more than three months, and that a new Designated Premises Supervisor be appointed, taking over management of the shop floor and the acquisition and sale of alcohol and tobacco products.

Ian Savill, Principal Trading Standards Officer, Jean Champeau, Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer, and Declan Smyth, Thames Valley Police, were present as Responsible Authorities and addressed the Sub-Committee.  Peter Narancic, Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer, presented the report at the meeting.

Resolved –

That having reviewed the Premises Licence in respect of PAL Food and Wine, 397 Oxford Road, Reading and having had regard to the four licensing objectives, the oral and written representations made, the Secretary of State’s guidance as set out in the report and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as set out in the report, the Sub-Committee concluded that it would be appropriate and proportionate to revoke the Premises Licence due to:

(a)     The alleged offences of having illegal alcohol and tobacco/cigarettes on the premises which was deemed to be so serious a matter by the Sub-Committee so as to warrant the revocation of the Premises Licence;

(b)     It being clear during the hearing that the Premises Licence Holder had not promoted the four licensing objectives, especially in relation to  Crime and Disorder objective as he had not adhered to the conditions placed on his Licence;

(c)     Other conditions which had also not been complied with including: Challenge 25; failure to train staff and maintain the required training records; and several test purchase failures.  This being the position even when there had been several inspections by Trading Standards, giving the Premises Licence Holder the opportunity to make the required improvements;

(d)     That mentioned by the Premises Licence Holder at the hearing. as he had a bag full of invoices suggesting that these would account for the illegal alcohol, tobacco/cigarettes found on the premises, but neither the invoices or the explanation given by the Premises Licence Holder appeared credible;

(e)     The Premises Licence Holder’s representative had proposed a suspension of the licence and a new Designated Premises Supervisor, but the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that this proposal would serve to promote the four Licensing Objectives as the Premises Licence Holder had had ample time to correct the situation and to date had done nothing different to seek to promote the Objectives.