Issue - meetings

Applicant’s case

The Applicant explained that a key priority for his service was to protect children from harm and that one way in which that is done was through test purchasing.  He summarised the chronology of events, which was detailed in the application for the review.  He showed the meeting the can of alcohol which had been purchased on 7 April 2022. 

Questions to the Applicant

Councillor Onslow queried the extent of the anecdotal evidence that alcohol was being sold to children. The Applicant said the only evidence was that in section 4 on page 11 of the agenda.

The Chairman asked about the July 2021 underage sales visit. The Applicant confirmed that no sale had been made, but that the behaviour had given him cause for concern. The Chairman noted the premises had been licensed for 16 years and enquired if there was an indication of problems over that period.  The Applicant stated there had been one underage sale in 2014, a few Challenge 25 sales, but the majority had been refusals. The Applicant was not able to provide any information about training over the 16 years, as he relied on what the licence holder told him.

Licence Holder’s case

Ms Hughes spoke for the licence holder.  She said he was also the designated premises supervisor.

The Licence Holder was not making any excuse or justification for the underage sale and was very aware of the seriousness.  He was very sorry for the slip in standards.  The Licence Holder summarised the chronology of events, which was detailed in appendix 6 of the agenda, and emphasised that it had been a very difficult and traumatic time immediately before. The Licence Holder referred to the refusal log and pointed out there had been regular refusals before and after.

In relation to the steps since the underage sale in April 2022, there was now a robust training policy in place, given by the designated premises supervisor.  The training was refreshed every 6 months.  Staff members had to complete a checklist (also in appendix 6), which had been obtained from Medway Council as Bromley did not have an equivalent.  There was also third party Challenge 25 training and the certificates in the appendix 6 were referred to.  The Licence Holder said that work had been done in order to reassure the committee that the premises was operating in a way which protected children from harm. 

The Licence Holder was happy for training every 6 months to be a condition and pointed out that test purchases could be made.

If there were a 3 month suspension, this would result in a serious financial loss. This would be in addition to the costs of the break-in and general increase in  cost of living. It would be a devasting loss of income for the family and the business may no longer be viable.  Family and employees were dependant on the business.  It would also affect the local community and letters from residents and councillors were cited.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7