To consider an application for a Review of a Premises Licence for Zakopane, 16 Market Street, Torquay.

Members considered a report on an application for a review of a Premises Licence in respect of Zakopane, 16 Market Street, Torquay.  The Premises do fall within the Cumulative Impact Area.

Written Representations received from:

Additional Information:

Members sought oral representations from the Police and Trading Standards Officer on whether, in their view, the Hearing should proceed in the absence of the Respondent.

Members resolved the Hearing should proceed in the absence of the Respondent having been informed that the Respondent was aware of the date and time of the Hearing and that to proceed was in the public interest.

The Chairman permitted an extension of time for oral representations and advised that each party would be permitted 20 minutes for their representation.  All parties present confirmed 20 minutes would be sufficient time to submit their oral representations.

Oral Representations received from:

Decision

That the Premises Licence in respect of Zakopane, 16 Market Street, Torquay be revoked.

Reasons for Decision

The evidence presented by the Trading Standards Officer and Police Licensing Officer demonstrated, what in Members opinion, appeared to be a sophisticated and entrenched level of criminality at the premises, levels which officers with 18 years of experience had never witnessed before.  Members themselves concurred with the sentiment of the officers noting, that in their limited experience by comparison, they too had never been presented with such evidence which demonstrated the level of criminal activity taking place at a premises licenced by Torbay Council.

It was clear to Members that the primary aim of this premise was the pursuit, concealment and sale of illegal goods.  Members were greatly concerned to learn that some employees at the Premises were too involved in these illegal activities or would have known that the premises were participating in such illegal activities, given the scale of the criminal operation and the amount of goods seized from the premises by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. This in Members opinion, would have made it almost impossible for any member of staff employed at the premises to not have been aware that such activities were taking place and therefore, would have been condoning such activities, along with the Premises Licence Holder as there was no evidence before them to suggest that it was an employee who had notified the enforcement authorities.

Members gave consideration to placing additional conditions on the premises licence, as initially proposed at a previous hearing by the holder of the interim transferred licence before the Police had objected to the application and in turn, been refused by the Licensing Sub-Committee, but noted the evidence submitted by the experienced Trading Standards Officer that there were no conditions that could deter the level of criminality being carried out at these premises.  This coupled with Members complete lack of confidence that the Premises Licence Holder, or staff employed by him, would comply with any additional conditions or uphold the Licensing Objective ‘The Prevention of Crime and Disorder’ led Members to conclude that revocation was the only appropriate option available to them in the circumstances so as to alleviate their concerns, that of the Responsible Authorities and to cease illegal activity from continuing at these premises.

Furthermore, Members had regard to section 11.27 and 11.28 of Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the fact that the premises are situated within the Licensing Authority’s Cumulative Impact Area, an area that already experiences higher levels of crime, disorder and public nuisance and in doing so, determined in the circumstances before them that revocation of the premises licence was in the interests of the wider community and appropriate.

In concluding, Members noted that the Premises Licence Holder was aware of the hearing date and his failing to attend showed a complete disregard for the seriousness of the situation, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary which on that before them, would have been hard to disprove, resulted in Members determining that they had no confidence in the ability of the Premises Licence Holder to run a lawful premises which promoted the Licensing Objectives.