Transcript

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. This is a meeting for licensing act 2003 subcommittee of the London Bar of Newham for a variation premises license application 169 High Street North East Ham E6 1JB. Please note that the meeting recording will be available after the meeting on the council's YouTube channel. In accordance with the member's code of conduct, the three councillors committee today are required to to declare any relevant interests on any matter being considered at this meeting. I have nothing to declare, councillor. I have nothing to declare. I will now move to introductions. My name is councillor Tony Wilson. I represent Becht and Morton. I'll be chairing this meeting throughout. Councillor. And councillor Jane Lofthouse, representing Plasso South. Councillor Simon Bush, representing Plasso West and Cannontale East. Thank you. Thank you. Case officer, please. Steve Jackson, licensing team. Thank you very much. And can I say to apologise on behalf of Connell. He's not feeling very well today. So I've come in his place. My name's Ian Wagstaff and I'm representative of the Metropoli case. Thank you. Licensing enforcement team. Thank you very much. Would you like to introduce yourself, sir? Thank you, sir. My name is Nader Rajesh. I'm a business consultant representing my client. His name is Raya Saundar Rajesh. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay. I will now quickly run through the procedure of this meeting. The licensing case officer will present their report. We will then move to representations from the responsible authorities. For example, the police trading standards or environmental health. Members can ask and seek clarification. So can the applicant or their representatives on any matter discussed today. We have representation from the council's license enforcement team, and a supporting petition has been received via the premises holders agent. The license holder then presents their case. Finally, members may pass a resolution to deliberate in private and exclude the press and the public. Including the parties and the representatives, the clerk and the legal advisor will remain with the members to provide advice on procedure and law. When the decision has been reached, the meeting will reconvene and the decision of the subcommittee will be announced in public. Four written copies of the decision sent to the applicant stroke license holder, responsible authorities and interested parties, usually within five working days. Parties who have taken part in the hearing may appeal against the decision to the magistrate within 21 days. As this is an administrative hearing under the 2003 Act, we are not trained lawyers, so rely on legal advice from our legal department. Today, represented by Mandik Miha. Thank you. I'd also like to inform all parties that we base our decision on written and oral submissions. The clerk will take the minutes of the meeting. Please introduce. Thank you, Miranissa. If anyone in the chamber wishes to ask a question during the meeting, I will ask that they will raise their hand and wait to be invited to speak. I'd also like for all mobile phones to be silenced or switched off so we have no interruptions. I will now move to the case of several to present your report. Thank you, Chair. The members of the licensing subcommittee are asked to hear and determine a variation application. Current premise license for 169 High Street North East town. The six one J.B. The app to Mr. South Rajan and any valid representations that have been made an application to vary the existing premises license was received by the licensing authority on the ninth of October. Twenty twenty twenty four. This was advertised at the premises and in the local newspaper. A copy of the application was attached. Appendix A application is for the following to remove conditions from annex free and replace them with alternatives. As per the application. These conditions are condition two, three, four, five and eight. The council's licensing enforcement team in their capacity as a responsible authority have submitted a letter of representation on the grounds of crime, crime disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety. A copy of their a copy of their tax appendix. A copy of their tax appendix C. Excuse me, a copy of supporting the petition has been received by the premises holders agent. This is attached appendix D. Where premises lie within a community of impact zone, there is a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises license or club certificate or variations in respect of such premises would normally be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate in their operating schedule. There will be no negative impact on one or more of the license objectives at the hearing members of this satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated this. The community impact of the only be considered where relevant representations paid means that if there are no relevant representation, the application must be granted even if it is within the C. C. I said members of the subcommittee should note that each application within the C. I said needs to be considered on its own merits and that the blanket refuses cannot be made. Where the license nor for decides to impose conditions on a license, whether in a C. I said or not, such conditions must be appropriate proportionate for the promotion of the license objectives. Christian condition should be clear and unequivocal. The secretary of state has issued guidance to the license and authorities to which they must must have in regard. In regard to coming out their licensing functions. Members of the subcommittee should note that copies of the guidance are available at meetings of the subcommittee. Alternatively, copies can be obtained direct from the committee clerk. Licensing authorities may only depart from the guidance if they have good do so. These premises does these premises does fall within the C. I said and a map of the C. I said area is attached. The premises has held a premises license since 2005 where previously they held a license under the former Justice Act. This license was converted and first issued on the 14th of September 2005. The license was transferred on the 9th of April 2012. On the 29th of April, the council's licensing team called the premises licensing for review. The view application was heard by the licensing subcommittee. The hearing held on the 18th of June, 2024, where the subcommittee decided to impose a four week suspension of the license and impose appropriate conditions. A copy of the decision letter is attached appendix F. A copy of the current premises license is attached appendix G. An area map and the street view of the premises is attached appendix H. Members of the licensing subcommittee are asked to hear the application. The relevant representation of the license holder and any valid representations received from responsible for authorities and determine the application. Additional to that shadow has been a supplementary which does enclose a additional representation and heat map from the police. And also there is a bundle that was provided by the agent in relation to training records, a statement in relation to the representations. I'm sure the agent got more detailed, but that's also in front of you today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, just clarification. And, Mona, please note that you heard Mr. PC Wagsar saying about Cronel. And also, again, on your case report, we have you as being the originator, but on the licensing representation, we also have your name, but we can fill in here. So. So what page was that? Page 47. One second. I'll just check it. Got you down as. No, that's, that's the, as Colin said, I think that's the. But it's got your name on it. No, that's. Your rep. Yes. Or am I making an error? That's a, that's a previous one that was done on the 26th of June, which I think Colin's included in his letter of representation. His original representation. Page 30. Maybe it'd be early on. Yeah. Page 23. Maybe it'd be early on. Page 23. I believe that. Obviously. Yeah. Colin has submitted. It's a warning letters and previous history related. Right. Lovely. Okay. I was a little bit confused. That's fine. All right. Thank you for that. So can you just confirm the timestamps? It says in the history that on. On. The, on. The, on. The, on. The, on. The, on. The, on. The, on. The, on. The, on. Page 30. I'll be. Early on. Yeah. Page 23. I believe that. Obviously. Yeah. Colleen has submitted. And some warning letters and previous history related. Right. Lovely. OK. I was a little bit confused. That's fine. Um. Was it in? Order up for review on the 28th. So what one was that chair? Sorry. Yep. And then, um, the review went ahead on the 18th. Yes. It was called in for review on the 29th of April, 2024 by the council's licensing team. Um, and the decision. See, the hearing was held on the 18th of June. Right. And the committee imposed a four week suspension. And that was lifted when that expired on the 18th of July. Uh, it would have been around that time. Yeah. I can, I can officially get the date if you require. Um, just so we can have it noted. And then, um, and then they've been trading for the last few months. Yes. Under the new. Under the new imposed by the committee. Yes. That's correct. Um, could you pull up a picture of the actual premises and the street map? Please. So we have an idea and everyone can see. Okay. So this is down by street north. The premises is this premises here. Which one? The orange or the blue one. Okay. Um, and obviously this high street, let me just go back a bit. And I'll give you a bit of an idea. The location obviously leading down to where the town is today. And this way is obviously leading towards, uh, East Ham station. So we're talking. Okay. We have approximately five licensed premises within that vicinity. Yes. Are you able to tell me or show me where they are? Um, Relation. To the premise. Might be easy. If I just shout them out rather than. Be great. And there. Thank you. I'm just going to stop the share. So I can, just in case I've got any information pops up. Um, okay. Um, okay. So, uh, obviously Lidl is just down the road, which is 182 to 188 High Street North. Yep. Yep. Yep. Um, terms on that license are supply of alcohol Monday to Saturday, eight to 11 and Sunday, 10 to 10 30. Mm hmm. Um, and the conditions are limited to following the stores policy and procedures. They are standard for bigger chains. Um, there's one called store three, six, five UK. That's one nine, four, a high street north. Um, that has supply of alcohol Monday to Sunday, every day, 11 AM till 10 PM. And there is a number of conditions on that license in relation to alcohol controls. Okay. Um, do you want me to go through them in detail or no, no, that's fine. Okay. Just move on to premises. Number three. Problem. I'm scrolling down. We've got Marla's cash and carry, which is 2 1 2 high street north. Um, that has supply of alcohol 7 AM till midnight, uh, Sunday to Wednesday and Thursday to Saturday 7 AM till 7 AM. 7 AM till 1 AM. Again, that has a number of alcohol control conditions. Um, um, silver store, which is 2 20 high street north. Um, that has Monday to Sunday, 8 AM till midnight for alcohol. Um, and that again, has a number of alcohol controls and the conditions. Sassy cash and carry 2 2 6 high street north. Um, that has alcohol sales from Monday to Sunday, uh, and that's 24 hours. And also has a late night refreshments on that license as well. And again, that has a number of conditions on that license relating to alcohol controls. Um, I think that's pretty much it. I'm in that deal of around 200 units. Yes. Okay. And could you tell me just out of, uh, curiosity, I don't know, because, and I'll leave this one with you and you can come back to me about the can marking. How many of these have can marking, uh, yeah, you can come back to me on that one. Yeah. Right. Thank you. Councillor Lofthouse, any questions? Um, no, well, it's a notification on the alcohol controls. Um, are they much like the, the conditions that this application has asked to have withdrawn? I.e. Um, no miniatures below, no spirits below 35 CL and. Um, just having a quick look there. There is majority that have 35 CL. Yeah. And there is a few that do have 20 CL. A few out of the five. I would say two that I've seen just scrolling through that. At least that you just asked me to produce as two with 20 CL and the rest of all have 35 CL with all alcohol controls of a percentage of, uh, ABV. And, and the can, two cans. I didn't look at that much. I can, I can, I can come back to you. What strengths or how robust the various conditions were around, um, 6% to 6.5% from that. Um, obviously just having a quick look and there are a few premises that do have exceptions of, uh, things like, um. My cheering. My cheering. It's the path. Yes. Which are high speech, but they're normally behind the counter and not for self-service. Okay. Not displayed in the fridges for anyone to walk in and just take themselves. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. You still want me to go back and check all them to confirm? Yes. That would be good. Yes. Um, councillor. Yes. Sorry. Just the one question for you. Um, in effect, it's been three months since this, the suspension finished. Is it your experience for, um, for the, the, the business to come back and require and request changes? And is it not, is it normally enough time to make sure everything's back running nice and smoothly as an average? Um, I, I have seen people apply for minor changes in the past when certain things have been added to a license, but, um, for alcohol controls, uh, straight off a review, uh, for promises to apply within three months. In effect is. Yeah. I would say very early. Um, but I'm sure the licensing officer will, he's been dealing with it for me. So we have more detail on that. Yeah. For my experience, we wouldn't normally tend to want to see between six months to a year or operations or under the conditions to make sure there's no negative effects around the four license objectives. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for, um, Steve regarding his report? Ian? Yes. Any questions for the case officer? Thank you. Okay. So we'll move on. We'll start with, um, you. You. The police. Thank you. Um, right. On behalf of the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, I wish to object to an application to vary the premises license for food and wine cost. One six nine. High street one. Three six one. JB. The grounds of prevention of crime sort of the prevention of public nuisance and also from public safety. The application is to amend conditions from the license that were imposed by the licensing subcommittee hearing on the 18th of June this year, following a review application by the council licensing team. The premises is situated within community impact zone as set out in the office of 2020 four. So the onus is on the applicant to comprehensive, demonstrate that if the variation is granted, it will not have a negative impact on the vicinity in terms of the four licensing objectives. The East Ham safe neighbors team have identified the area in which the premises is located as one that is problematic for antisocial behavior caused by street drinkers and groups of males congregating outside of off licenses, betting offices and adult gaming centers. They have undertaken several joint operations with local authority officers to try to mitigate the effects of antisocial behavior by street drinkers in the area surrounding the premises. And these joint operations appear to have some limited success. However, having said that, there is still clear evidence of problems with street drinking in the vicinity of this premises with discarded cans of high strength alcohol miniature bottles of spirits in the side streets near to premises. The presence of street drinkers and groups of males congregated in the vicinity that is extremely busy is very likely to have an adverse effect on the quality of life and wellbeing of local residents, especially of women and children and of other vulnerable persons that may reside in the area or are passing by the premises. I think this is why the police have included public safety is one of the grounds for this representation. Please do not consider that the reasons put forward by the applicant's agent for amending the wording of the conditions are very convincing or would promote for licensing objectives. Coming over to the supplementary. These then put further to my objection letter date, the fourth note number, I now wish to supplementary information on the grounds of prevention of crime disorder, prevention of public nuisance and public safety. The supplementary information is contained in a heat map that shows that 68 incidents of antisocial behavior within the E61JB postcode were reported to police in a two-month period period, August and September this year. These statistics reinforce the police view that we would like the committee to refuse the application, vary the conditions on the licence in its entirety. Thank you. Councillor Losh, any questions? Yes, just one question morning. Obviously, you've been looking at the alcohol met litter and, you know, stuff that's left by the street drinkers. Are you offensively attributed to 169 Street North? So, if you go by the heat map, this is Connell's and he sort of sent me, it's fine. So, the heat map is a record of the number of incidents of antisocial behavior that were reported to the police that occurred within that postcode over a two-month period. The total number of incidents was 68, which is relatively higher, even for High Street North, which is an area with problems with ASB. As you can see, practically the whole of the west side of High Street North within this postcode is shaded in the darker blue. The darker blue colour indicates a great number of offences. But what we're not necessarily saying is that these offences are directly connected to the premises, as far as we can tell. But it puts into context the challenging environment that the licence holder is operated in, and the need for them to have a comprehensive and robust set of conditions, especially conditions regarding control of the sound value. So, in effect, you can't connect with the markings of alcohol. No. Thank you. Councillor Lofthouse. Is there any evidence of the change in number of incidents? I mean, you've got 68 in August and September. Is that up or down? Or what's preceded it? It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. It's just a... So, he's only in August and September. Yeah. And he feels July and August would only confuse, because Ed King from the councillors has done the Matt Fork on it. I'll be honest. I don't know. There it is. Okay. And regarding the discarded cans and bottles and so on, have any of those, are any of those marked? Any evidence of where they may have come from? And have the number gone up or gone down? Any idea? Any change? I would say no, because I'm sure if it had, I'm sure Connell would have mentioned it. Yes. And has there been any change, any noted change recently in the amount of, in the number of cans? Again, he hasn't in England, his representation. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Do you believe the conditions that were agreed have made a positive or negative impact on the area? From the last committee. I think there's been some improvement, but it's still an area that's ongoing. It's a bit like my questions, but that's just what we're trying to get. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. The only answer is, if you look at this, I haven't sort of gone into a go by as the information that Nicole has given me and then obviously I've had a conversation with the Council. I don't know. They might know more of that. Yes. But I don't. Okay. Thank you very much. One of you on Connells, he stated that you and joint operations with local authorities have been working to mitigate the effects of ASB and street drinkers. So what does that actually entail? For instance, the length of time, who are the other people you've worked with and manpower. So for you to go out and do an operation like that on that, just say that stretch of road, how much time, manpower, and you know, what does it take? How does it work? So going by not linked to your premises, but on a normal day, then we'd obviously meet up with the Council, we'd have to have a bit of briefing. Right. You would get the Safe Neighbours Officers. Right. You'd just do it as a joint operation. So you would target everything. So some people, it could be, you could go into a premises and client's visit. Yeah. That could take half an hour to an hour per premises. So if you've got five, you're looking at all day. Yes. And then you would sort of, you try and have police officers in uniform down there. So that the plan wouldn't. So it's very time consuming. I think to do those five premises, you're looking at four to six hours. Right. Okay. And obviously at a cost. Yeah. Because the Safe Neighbours seem to get those people together at the moment because of the restrictions on policing at the moment. Then because the amount of aid upstairs, police officers from response teams sent up town, which means the Safe Neighbours officers, which are here and dedicated to these walls, and then all their walls. They're then sent off to make the staff up response team. So at the moment. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Have you any further questions? Right. I just want to say, is there any on the heat map? Is there any significance with the colours? Well, you don't know. Okay. So please put the west side of High Street within this postcode is shaded in a dark blue and the darker blue colour indicates a greater number of the fences. So the dark red is the top fences. The dark blue. Okay. And then the premises is where the red little thing is. No. Oh, high mode between high and high. You're talking the peg, the red with the little circle in the middle. Yeah. Yes. That's roughly where it is. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I was at the back of my back. Can I see one? Can I put it up on the screen? Yes, that would be great. Great. Thank you, Stu. I'm worried that I've got that other information for you as well. Lovely. And if we can have that before we move on. The premises will be here. Yeah. Yeah. And then obviously darker shades dotted around. Yes. Not sure. What's the red spot? Did you say? Doesn't that? So the premises is pretty much where the S is, I think, between the S and the H of High Street. Down and down. Yeah. Down and down. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can't specifically say this there-ish. Because that's where the bus stop is as well. That's right. Oh, yes. So it's closer to Latham Road. Yeah, if you come down a bit more. Yeah. Stop. It's about there. All right. Okay. And we don't know what the multicolour rainbow round is. Colin, any idea? What's that? Sorry? The red, yellow, blue near Scaffington. You know what I think that is? I think that's where you look for it and you pinpoint something. I don't mean that's got any significance in that. Oh, that it detects? Yeah. I think that's where you find it. That highlights it sort of thing, so you can move it to where you want it. Right. Lovely. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah. So between all these heat spots, 68 incidents reported between, what was it? August and September, 2024. It's quite a close, it's been in close proximity. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Have you got any? Sorry. So have you got any questions for the police? Thank you, just a couple of one. One of them, council asked me, asked already, whether it's any direct evidence. Correlations. Yeah, correlation to the premises. You answered that. Thank you, officer. The second one is on the statement, which I have, I received already from the police mentioning that they witnessed lots of super strength cans and miniature bottles found close to this premises. I just want to know. I don't know whether police are aware that my client has been selling super strength for almost last 10 years, even though there was no restrictions on his license until the review hearing, but he stopped. He stopped. We have evidence to show that he stopped. He never sold super strength for the last, since 2015. And not to make a statement. I'm just asking. That's a specific question. So your question. Yeah. My question is, I don't know if the police are aware of that. And, um, uh, we were not selling, uh, miniature bottles and we are not going to sell miniature bottles in the future, even if there are variation granted. So I just want to know with the police as well. So we haven't attributed it directly to your premises. Obviously we are targeting all of the premises down there. It is a work in the road. Um, that's all I can say really. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, Steve, before we move any further, you've got some information for us. Yes. Um, just for the information that you requested, um, the, in relation to the suspension, a four week suspension on the license, uh, commenced at midnight on the 18th of June, 20, 24, and ended on midnight on the 16th of July, 20, 24. In relation to the other premises, um, there is, I don't know if you want me to name a one one for a high street North as 6%, uh, ABV and 35 CL and can only sell in packs of four. Uh, two, one, two high street North has bottle markings, 20 CL, no singles and selected higher strength brands kept behind the counter. No self service. Uh, silver store, two 20, I street North, 6% ABV maximum, but if I have CL and packs of four and Sashi cash and carry 226, I street North, um, as 6%, 20 CL and no singles. Could you tell me Sashi's on a grandfather license or is it, um, has it been? It may have previously, but, um, it's, um, it's got 6.5% 20 CL and no single. So I would assume that's been updated since then. Okay. Counselor. The last one didn't have bottle marking. Uh, CL didn't have bottle marking. No, not that I saw. No, I can go back and confirm that now though. 20. Oh, and did any of the others have bottle marking? Uh, only one of them that I saw, which was two, one, two high street North. Just gonna confirm this last one for you now. Sorry, these laptops are so slow today. It's okay. It's a lot of conditions on here. I'm just scrolling. Sorry. It's okay. In the meantime, um, so there's no more questions for the police. Um, and while Steve is currently and actively looking, could you, would you like to present your report, please? Yes. Colin. In regards to that. Very. Existing members license for 169. Uh, mostly. They would like to make representation against the application as a responsible authority on the grounds of financial intervention of public nuisance. The council, as we've heard, the council licensing team, along with the police, commercial, and other agencies have worked very hard to eradicate street. Drinks and anti social activities occurring in this area, especially if my street North. And this is obviously as, as the police officers just said, this is still ongoing as well. Um, there was a comprehensive array of conditions that were placed on the license after the licensing team reviewed the premises license on the 29th break between 24. A subcommittee sat on the 18th of June, 20, 24, where the, where it was decided to impose stringent conditions to combat the issues that surround the set. Yeah. Decided not to appeal this decision. The area is plagued with street drinkers and gangs. And most of the premises selling alcohol, as we've just heard, or the, the sell off sales have got robust conditions on their license to assist with this. Since conditions have been imposed on this license, on this license, including high street North. We have seen, uh, we in the licensing team have seen a change in the area for the better. We have less street drinkers. Also, I believe by putting these conditions back on the license, I believe, uh, that it will attract street drinkers back to the area. Uh, these premises only been operating under the license for a very, very short time. And still want to remove the conditions. The premises is in a high crime area. As we've just heard. And has been designated as the cancer CIZ area. I have attached the decision letter and the co and this committee that, sorry, that this committee made after the review. Only three months before they submitted the variation. So if you work that out chair, uh, they, they were, they were suspended for, for a month. So it's only two weeks, two months. Sorry. Since they put the new. So they've only been operating under this new license for two months. Right. A bit longer than that. But they're variation coming down through months after, uh, the life of the spending. Yeah. Uh, on behalf of the council licensing authority and its capacity as responsible authority, I would ask the members of the subcommittee consider this letter of representation. Thanks Colin. Okay. Um, so obviously you've seen changes. Uh, I think we all have, we all go down the high street at one stage or another. Um, so you could you just elaborate on the changes that. Yes. I mean, there, there is still an issue down there and we've got, um, in fact, we have got still special operations down there. A police special unit has been designated to look after high street from the surrounding areas. I forget what it's called now. So it's got a code name. Um, so there is a, there is a problem down that high street, not just with street drinkers with gangs as well, hanging around causing antisensual behavior. But obviously as a license from 30, we focus on the, uh, uh, street drinking. We're not saying it's perfect down there with street drinking by any stretch of the imagination. And there are still some work to be done by the licensing authority. But I believe that there has been improvements since these conditions have started going on to the license. We're seeing less mess in the area for street. In fact, we're seeing less cans of alcohol down the high street. Um, we're seeing, um, the, uh, uh, energy drinks that the game that they use as well. And I believe that what they're doing is they've, they've got the, um, energy drinks and they're putting alcohol into the menu. And that's why we want us to keep it at 35 of CL. Right. But there has been a, an improvement, but far from perfect. And we're trying to strive to, to, to improve that, what we've got already. Okay. Going to, thank you for that. Going for, uh, to page 14. Um, annex three condition. Two. Can you give me your thoughts on, um, that condition and their reasonings behind it? Yes. I went proposed and the reasons and what would you make of that? Cause there's a little confusion amongst the committee that either there's some kind of error or it's deliberate. Yeah. So are we talking about annex three condition two? Yes. Where spirits should not be sold in bottles of legendary price scale. That's what's current. No miniature bottles of spirits shall be sold. That's what they're requesting. Um, so miniature bottles of five CL, I think the five CL. Um, and they, I think they, they go from five to 20 to 35 then. Yeah. And I, uh, um, and we, the street drinkers are buying five CLs. They are buying, um, 20 CLs as well, but there's a group of 35 CLs is slightly out of range for a lot of the street drinkers. My. So when you look at the reasoning as to why, do you think there was an error? What, what, what we're saying is it's proposed no miniature bottles of spirits shall be sold premises. But then when you read the reason, we wasn't quite sure whether they were, and we will come to you on that. Um, Steve. Um, I think what they mean by that is they will not sell five CL. So 10, 10 CL and above. I believe that's what they're requesting. 10 CL and above. But again, the applicant reader. They say, I mean, you know, we are losing good customers. I mean, what, you know, the good customers, what are the good customers? The people that buy regular miniatures, you know, low, um, low volume drinks. They're the good customers. We know the area. We know what, what people buy in that area. Okay. And before I go on any further, and whilst we're on the subject. So could you just clarify condition two to me, please? What exactly are you stating? Uh, thank you, sir. The, uh, what we are asking is, um, anything below 20 CL. We, we want to stop that. Uh, we don't want to sell 5 CL. We don't want to sell 10 CL. Um, anything, uh, below 20 CL in line with the, our neighboring of licenses. Right. So you're saying you want to sell 20 CL. 20 CL and above. And above. About. 20 CL. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, right. So coming back to you, um, Colin. Um, so do you believe that the changes in annex three, which they are proposing are justified? No, as, as, as I say, like, you know, this would be reviewed in, uh, I think it was April. They got, uh, you know, a suspension, which is wiped down from a revocation in my eyes. Um, so it's quite a serious, um, sanction on these premises by this committee. Yeah. Um, so the, the, the conditions placed on this license recently, I feel were, were the right conditions. And I feel like they should all be the only one that I would obviously consider changing them in front of is condition five, a personal license holder DPS. And I would even add, add, or a nominated person because then that person is still responsible. Uh, but it hasn't got that. It says a personal license. I would think yes. Yes. Yeah. Uh, but I believe it should say nominated person. That's the only, um, addition. I would, I would suggest, uh, because it has to be there all the time. They, you know, under license, they don't have to be there all the time. Um, a personal license holder, ideally we'd like it personal license holder. But again, if someone goes sick, as long as there's a nominated person, because that, that person is, they're nominated, they're still responsible, almost as a personal license holder. Lovely. Yeah. Thank you. Um, okay. Um, so we've looked at the supplementary and we've read it, uh, in its entirety. And there's a section on there starting from page 23. The supplementary. Yeah. Yeah. With regards to mental health and small businesses. Um, and I'll take it. You've read that. Yep. Um, how much owners. I've been off last. Ah, okay. Sorry. Number 23. Twenty. Twenty. And to inform awareness week. Yeah. And it's not just awareness week. Um, about, uh, small business owners and how, uh, their lives have been affected. I take it. You haven't had an opportunity to read none of that. I mean, I've, I've glanced at it, but I haven't sort of did it much. Okay. I was just going to ask your thoughts on that, because to be honest, this committee, it's the first time we've actually seen anything, um, submitted like this. Um, and how they're experiencing poor mental health because of the times they have to work, the worry, the stress, uh, anxiety, et cetera. Um, and, you know, just generally how they're making their money and the, the stress. Maybe the councils or the governments are putting on them with these various conditions, um, and how it's impacting on their lives. And I just wondered, you know, have you any thought on that or any say to that matter? I mean, obviously, uh, mental health issues is quite serious and we do take it very serious. However, if, if a premises isn't operating correctly, you know, um, they, they should be, they should be putting stuff in place to, um, to help the situation. Uh, these conditions, I don't understand how that would create any problems with mental health because it's down to the premises to put that term measures in place to prevent these issues. And by just putting a nominated person on the premises, not a personal license holder, not a, the license holder, not the DPS, a nominated person that they can train up to, to help run the premises. Would, would in my eyes help with that situation? Because then if there is a problem, because obviously it's a, it is a, um, uh, a stressful area, you know, and anybody who's got a shop down that street is, you know, liable. You know, it, it is a, a problem, you know, with, with customers can get very violent. You know, the, the, the, it's not a friendliest place in the world down that ice street. So there is, there is them issue. Well, so I, I will, I do take that on board, but I, I think these, these, these conditions may help the situation rather than, um, exacerbate the problem because then the street drinkers aren't going to be coming in, because they're not selling these, the, the products that attract the angry people when they can't. Yeah. Because they know that they can't buy the alcohol in there. They can't buy the miniatures in there, you know, so they won't go in there. Yeah. So it could help the situation. Thank you. Um, Councillor Marsh, I know you might have had some questions about the mental health issue, but would you like to question? Um, yes, thank you chair. Um, have you visited the premises since, uh, uh, I think we, yeah, sorry. I, I personally haven't, but, um, our officers haven't, they've done, um, a test purchase in there. And I think, I think they've done a compliant visit in there. Shane done a compliant visit in there after the suspension was done. And it's fine. Good. Well, I'll assume that helps. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Mental health questions. Thank you. Please. Yes. There's two things I'd like to ask about on the, on the conditions. One is regards, how important do you consider that to be in your detection of? Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, that, that's what it is. It's, it's, it helps us detect where the alcohol is coming from. However, if we're doing a compliance visit and they're not selling the high strength beers and the miniatures, and we, we can go to the, uh, premises and check. They're not selling them. The chances are, it's not going to be then that the goals in the problem. Yeah. They're not selling the problem out the problem alcohol. Yeah. Um, so when we do look and we, it's a good indicator and see where they're coming from. Yeah. We, we, we would do a compliance visit and then we're going to look on the streets, see that the all high strength beers. And we, we say then we'll straight away. We know it's not this premises or other premises that have got that condition on them. We've tested them. It's got to be coming from somewhere else. So it's, it's, it is good, but I don't think it's essential that we have them when they've got other conditions on the license. So they're compliant with robust conditions. Yeah. It's not so important. Yeah. Right. Well, thank you. And the other thing I wanted to ask about was the CCTV because the suggestion here is that, um, there is not necessarily somebody who can download it immediately. Um, and the, the suggestion is that it's, um, proposed that it would be available to the authorities in 24 hours. Now, is that, would that be sufficient for the police and for the police? No, I mean, from, from our point of view, I mean, uh, Ian just shook his head. Well, no, I mean, it, it could be that we go down there and we want that CCTV from a licensing authority. You can definitely do, but certainly from a police's point of view, I would suggest that we would want somebody on the premises to download that CCTV. Cause it could be something quite important that we need immediately from a licensing point. Possibly not immediately, but we'd like to see it. And it's a part of the training as well. They, they should be able to run. If somebody is there on their own, they should be able to run that premises part of running the premises is to be able to do everything. So like that nominated person should be able to refuse, should know where the refuses book is, know how to download CCTV. And that gives us that confidence that somebody knows what they're doing rather than going to a premises and someone says, well, I don't know how to do that. Yeah. It doesn't give us that confidence and they put lots of training stuff in there. So why can't that be a part of the training? I mean, it's not, it's not, you haven't got to know everything. You just know how to operate it. That's all, that's all we're asking. And I don't think that's, that's unreasonable to ask that. And in a crisis, you could need it there and then. Yeah. Well, generally a crisis isn't from the licensing, a crisis could be from the, and to have a shop that's got it. Yeah. The so helpful, at least more than, more than us. I mean, we could, but I think that's a part of the training that it should be available. And that person in that premises, it's, it should be, he should have, if he's left in charge of that. Cause I mean, when the review, I mean, the guy in the premises knew nothing. He, he was like, I don't know what I'm doing sort of thing here. And he was anything. Cause we were asking questions. That's one of the reasons we brought it in for review. Now I think by the training, by everything. If we go in there and they say, yeah, I know how to do the training. There's a refusers book. There's, you know, whatever we've got on the license. And I can operate CCTV. Look, this is how you do it. Then it's belt braces. And this premises is, is run correctly then in my view. Thank you very much. Thank you. Was there anything you wanted to add to that from the police's point of view? I see yourself quite busy. The CCTV. Yeah. Then the CCTV would be crucial. Yeah. Like Colleen said with the DPS, with an overnight person. It's not very difficult for me. If you allow me access to your CCTV and so many systems are different. Yeah. They've got the prevention of crime disorder. So it would be nice for us to say, someone's trained, show me, especially if it's a career coincidence. Right. If we've got all premises working together, then it makes my job so much easier than rather than, hello, if you've got a suspect. And as you say, it's like a stranger thing to get that image and to get it out there. Prevention of crime. If he's done one of the crime, he could do another. Let's get him as soon as possible. Let's not wait to anything. Thank you. Thank you. Colin. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Just looking through the refusal book, I know I know there's possibly two or three of them that haven't been signed or witnessed have sold. And some of them have been refused by a known person, but not witnessed. Would that be considered correct? If it's not filled out correctly, does it count as it were? So if it's not completed correctly, is it, is it an issue? I mean, it depends, you know, again, with, you know, it's a shop. Obviously if you've got a shop full of people, you know, we take a view on it, you know, as long as it's being filled out, you know, as long as it's being filled out, you know, there's dates on it, you know, and we'd like to fill that correctly, but we're not, you know, we understand that, you know, sometimes, you know, one person might be in there on his own. He's got a shot of, you know, six people and he's got people on that. He's got, but I get it. I mean, so, so when, although we'd like it filled out correctly and we would want it filled out correctly, we'd take a bit of a view on it, you know, it's not, you know, it's not going to be 100% all the time. But in saying that, at least from my understanding, at least if there's a date and a time, you've got CCTV. Yeah, exactly. We'll go back on that and see it forward with this. Yeah. I mean, the training would be to fill it out correctly, you know. Of course. Of course. You know, we would always say fill out correctly, but, you know, if it's being filled out correctly, and there's two of three that's not quite right, you know, we take a view on that. Oh, I see. So if there's nothing filled out correctly, or there's one month and then nothing for two months, we'll take issue with that. Yeah. You can see it's being filled out and there's just a few mistakes on it. Yeah. You know, we're not too much. Okay. Okay. My last question, and it's with condition three. So the current says beer lager stout cider shall be sold in packs of no less than two. They're proposing beer's lager stout cider is no less than 500 ml shall not be sold on as a single unit. The minimum purchase will be two, which is fine. But then they've gone on to say about the 750 ml cans. Now, 500 ml is what is that like a Coke can size? 330. Bigger. Yeah, bigger. So they've come across with the 730 ml, which obviously is 750. And there are other cans bigger in volume. So, but they're expensive, so they don't expect drinkers to drink above 500 ml in beers, and that should include the 750 or bigger volumes. So the proposal is billed lager stouts and ciders less than 500 shall not be sold in singles. So anything over 500, they're saying they want to sell in singles. Right. How do you feel about that? And bigger volume? What is the bigger, what do they sell? They don't sell pegs or things like that. No, they sell, I mean, I think the average is about 430 or something. 440. 440 is it? That's the average can. You can get smaller, smaller cans, bottles. 500 is just a slightly bigger can. I don't, you know, 750s are and above. I've not seen the 750s. They're in liters. They're in bottles. A bottle. Bottles. Oh, the large bottles. Yeah, they don't do them in cans, do they? Yeah, they don't. No, they just do them in bottles. The street drinkers. Yeah, I mean, you know, over 500. They're not selling over 6% at all. Is it 6%? 5. So not to sell 500 mils. Definitely. Anything over 500 mils. So 750 up to liter bottles. What's your view on that? Yeah. Yeah. Like the bottles of big beers. Pardon me, we've seen it. We haven't seen any laying around, like it says. Right. And they're still below, they're still the sixth. No, not over 6%. Yeah. Would you tell me roughly how much one of those bottles will cost? It's about £6 onwards. Which one? Yeah. They're £7.50 and one liter. That's a minimum of four. Well, very many. Four pounds. Four pounds. Well, they can't sell. They can't sell anything over 6.5 anyway. Yeah. So I wouldn't like the 500 to be sold in less than 7.5 bottles. They are very big bottles. For £4 in money. Minimum of £4. Not over 6%. 6.5. So. And you don't see them on the street? We don't see them on the street, do we? We don't see the big bottles on the street that much. Right. I would certainly, if that was agreed, I would definitely keep the 35% ABV, the 35cl spirits. Nice. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I've got no further questions. I just have a quick question. Sorry. I don't know if I missed this, but do you have, there's obviously Steve mentioned there's some premises that have the restriction for 20cl. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if I missed this, but do you have, there's obviously Steve mentioned there's some premises that have the restriction for 20cl. So are you saying that, that you wouldn't want spirits sold in less than 35cl? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Steve. I've just got the answers that you requested earlier. Just to confirm this current license, which you imposed at the hearing last time is 6%. 6.5. 6.5. Apart from dragon stat and extra. Right. Um, and going back onto that premises, I can find where I put my notes. Um, it hasn't got labeling. It was an old justice license. A minor variation was done in 20, sorry, 2015. And the conditions they added on their operating schedule under annex 2 was volunteered by the premise holder. And that included the conditions that they submitted. Right. Okay. So that included, so that didn't include the 20cl. I think it's, it's 20cl. So they went from my old justice license with nothing, but they volunteered to do 20cl. The ABV condition. And, um, the last one was, so yeah, it says 6.5% they've got 20cl and no singles. And when was this? 2015. So that was. Yeah. It had done by, by the actual premise holder. Right. Okay. Thank you. So just, just going back to this premises, current license is 6%, 6.5. The license is. States. Yep. It's 855. Yep. Um, when you, um, 18th of June, 2024 beers, lagers, stouts, and salas sold at the premises, not 6% alcohol volume. Save for dragon stat and extra. That's condition one. When did you agree? Dragon stout. Yeah. So save for dragon stat and extra Guinness. Extra Guinness. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So no further questions. Any, uh, questions for Colin? Not that question chair. Um, I don't know whether I can clarify the refusal record book, if I may, the counselor. Oh, yes. Go on. Yeah. Um, sorry, counselor. It's, it's, um, it was filled correctly. It's the, um, the weakness is if you have a second staff, as a licensing officer mentioned, second staff, uh, on the premises, witness the refusal. The one doesn't have the witness signature. There was only one staff staff present at the time. Right. So it was witnessed by another person. So that was the case. Thank you, Clara for it. Thank you. Right. So we move on. Uh, sorry. Um, no, that's it. Lovely. Thank you. Um, right. Would you like to present your case, please? Um, thank you, Tia. I would like to start acknowledge the fact that there are issues in this area. Nice shop is the problem with street ringers and other public nuisance issues. We acknowledge that. Yeah. Um, it is a nuisance to the public, but, um, the, uh, the important point to note that it, they, the people who affected by the most is the business people. They are there every single day. They face these people every single day. Um, and they are, their investment is there. Their property is there. So they are on the front line, um, and they don't want the problem, uh, uh, as, as a local business, our objective is that what the responsible authorities is want. Um, we want to promote the licensing objectives in this area. We, we want to, um, uh, eradicate this problem. We need a safe and secure environment for our livelihood and our customers. My client wants to express this at the beginning of my presentation today. Thank you. We agree. We want to work with the, uh, authorities. Okay. In, um, 2015, I just want to go just to give background. The Newham council wrote a letter to all the local authorities, as the licensing officer mentioned, asking to vulnerably, um, uh, voluntarily stop the super strength alcohols. And, um, unlike some other premises, my client took that on board. He doesn't have to take it. It was there. It's a request by the licensing team. Um, and since 2015, we don't sell here at all. And not only that, he doesn't allow any problem people or street drinkers from his premises since 2015. Um, that was the practice on the premises. It was a lot easier for him to do that because he doesn't sell what they want. That was the case for the past nine years. Um, I have to say that that's, that's, he agreed to it. It's not something imposed on him. He, uh, voluntarily took that request. Uh, my client is a 59 year old businessman running this business for the past 24 years. Um, he's there for very long time job. He made a mistake early this year. The mistake he did. He went to, um, India for an, um, uh, unplanned visit. It was an emergency situation on the, um, uh, exhibit one. I include his passport and the stamps and everything. It was an unexpected visit. So when he went to India, he put one of his relative to cover part of his shift. The person officers met on the premises. He wasn't his regular staff. Yeah. That was the situation. I'm not going to go and talk about the review hearing. Um, that's been done. It was a mistake. We are not giving here to give you an excuse. I just wanted to explain the scenario. Um, it was a mistake. So during the emergency visit to India, my client, um, premises was inspected by the licensing enforcement team. And the person behind the counter didn't answer their questions properly because he was a temporary staff at that time. Um, there was no excuse for this. However, my client had to take that emergency measure due to the situation. He was in at that time. Uh, we are not giving you an excuse. It's just a situation surrounding that. Um, the person was in other regular staff chair. And if you look at the inspection report, um, I included that exhibit two, I believe, on our bundle. On the main agenda or the supplementary, uh, supplementary. I don't mind. What page? Uh, the page number on my book is 16. My page number was not. It's a bit too. Yes. So that was 16. Yes. Um, uh, this was the inspection report, uh, provided by the office. Uh, at that time, my client wasn't in the country. And if you look at the top, um, uh, left-hand corner, um, there's a summary license was on display, but he couldn't provide the full license documents and some other paperwork because it was locked in the cabin because my client wasn't in the country. And also importantly, if you look at the left side of the inspection seat, it says strong log available and the officer said no. No. So at that time, we were not selling, um, strong alcohol at all. I don't know whether you can see that. Yeah. Okay. So are we looking at exhibit two or exhibit three? Which? Exhibit two. Page 16. Yeah. Yeah. I have that. So you're saying. Okay. The person in charge of the premises at the time, Kieran Reedy. And it says summary on display. Is that what you were referring to? Uh, the one below that, uh, strong lager available. All right. Yes. Says no. No. So we were not selling the alcohol, which attract the street drinkers. Um, we trying to keep them away from the premises. We don't allow any street drinkers at that time. Okay. So just very quickly before we go, and I'm sorry to interject, but you've got copy of full license plans in you. You've brought this up, um, as a discussion. And it says a copy of a full license was not also present. Yeah. It wasn't present. It's the reason is, yeah, it was a failure. We are, we are admitting that. That's the reason we're hearing. The reason it wasn't available because all the document document unit was locked because my client wasn't in the country. So he doesn't want to keep it open. He left the country, put this stuff for an emergency situation. It is a mistake, but he had to take it. Um, we understand that. Okay. The point I'm trying to make at that time, we don't sell strong beers. Yes. We don't sell, uh, this is a voluntary, we accept that voluntarily. It's nothing imposed on us at that time. Sure. Um, So as a consequence of a license was reviewed, suspended, and alcohol was removed from the premises and suspension for a month. As officer said, and we had more than 15 strict license conditions added to our license. It was a big impact to the business. And, uh, my client was broken down by the, uh, the decision. However, he took all advice on board. He didn't challenge the authorities. Yeah. He respected the decision and sincerely followed every single measures, uh, was requested by the hearing. Yeah. If I, uh, uh, direct you, if I may share to the exhibit three, that was the follow-up inspection carried out by licensing team. Yeah. You can see it was fully implied. All the conditions, everything imposed after the licensing hearing. Okay. That was an exhibit three. It's 17. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Apart from one, but yeah, we're doubly compliant. Yeah. All right. Um, from the history of the premises and the previous inspections, it was very clear that, uh, that my client actively working with the authority to eradicate the street drinkers and the associated problems. Um, I know the officers raised, it was a very short period of the time for, we are coming back with some changes. The main reason is the, the, the number of conditions on the premises license, and some of them are worded in a way, which is risking his premises license without him making any mistakes. That is his main worry. Um, I will go through that one by one in detail. Yeah. So he's really worries that something can go wrong without he making the mistakes. And, and some of the conditions is it can undermine the license objective. I will go into the detail, uh, in a minute. And he also, uh, believes that couple of conditions are not fit for the purpose and seriously damaging his day to day business. Um, it's on a daily basis. If you understand it's a short period of time because he doesn't, this is this worry chair. He never had any problem for the past 24 years. After the review, he was completely shaken up. He's really worried because if something goes wrong now, he will lose the license. He'll stop. So he doesn't want that to happen. So that is why we made this application. Um, see the first, um, conditions we were asking is the pension number two about the 35 CL chair. If I direct you the map, I was included. Um, that's on the exit for, uh, I don't know whether you have it. I don't know whether you have it on color. Yeah. You have it on color. Yeah. The one in a red color star, that is where my client's premises is. That is the 169 high street note. That is his experience. And if he's, I picked up three, uh, similar nature of the premises, uh, very close proximity. It's about two minutes. Well, some of them are even less than that. If you look at the one next to it, it's the malas cash and carry 212 high street. No, they have license lot longer than us. Midnight or beyond midnight. I believe they don't have this 35 CL restrictions and they don't have the single cap conditions. And on the right chair, there's another red dot. Is Mastila stores and Burgess street. They have license till two o'clock in the morning, and they don't have this 35 CL restrictions or nursing hands. And the ones very, um, uh, close to us is NKS food and wine. Um, they have license same like our license hours, but I don't think they have any conditions at all. Um, including the 35 CL. So, uh, the reason we put this condition, because we are losing. We do have regular customers, good customers. Those people are right that petition to support this application. They do buy when they're way back to work, you know, back from work. When they go, go home, they do come and buy some, um, uh, few shoppings, including this small bottle. Some people do control the alcohol consumption by having a smaller bottle on a regular basis. They do buy this chair. We don't allow any street drinkers on our premises, and we are happy to accept a condition that we're not going to allow the street drinkers. So we don't want to sell it to them. That is not what he made this business for the last 10 years. Um, so we have shorter license hours among these off license, and we seems to have a lot more conditions than other license premises in a similar size. So that is the reason we are asking to, uh, um, reduce that from 35 CL to at least 20 CL. So we don't want to sell, sell any miniatures. Um, if that's going to attract the street drinkers, we don't want to do that, but just small, little relax, uh, relaxes, relaxes slightly just to match with the other license premises. It's a very competitive area. It's losing customers. Condition number three. Um, you have to point out, um, is the, uh, condition was worded, not clearly like two cans. We still want to keep two small cans and the bottles, anything below 500 or including 500. We are more than happy with that. It's just the bigger bottles. Yeah. It's people, but we have to force people to buy more or we lose those customers. Um, that 750 milliliters, bigger bottles, or maybe one liter. If they are not going to buy two of them, they don't come to our shop. It's badly affecting that. And it's bad for the customers too. They end up buying excessive alcohol because of the condition. So, um, we are happy to, you know, 500 ml or less. We still sell it, um, to minimum of two. We happy to keep that. We have. Um, the label. Are you happy to? So, uh, minimum, minimum of two, 500 ml. Okay. So you're happy with that? Yes. We're happy with that. But it's just the bottles. Anything above 500. Yeah. Uh, because they are unnecessary. And the side that includes cider as well. It's not just beer. Yeah. Because you get big bottle, liter bottles of cider as well. Okay. Yeah. Because the other reason is we are, we are happy to accept the conditions. Um, saying we are not going to allow any street drinkers into the premises. We have CCTV. Anybody can check it at any time. How, how would that be enforced? The street drinkers. Yeah. Yes. Because it's, I mean, actually, this is more a question for Lisa and Colin, but yeah, it's, I'm just thinking practically. Practically. What, you know. Yeah. I asked the same question to my client. What he said was, he's there. He, he works, he runs his business 24 years on the location. He knew all these problem people and he refused them for the last 10 years. So they don't, they don't come to that. He can see they're walking up and up, up, up and down on the street. And he refused those people in the past. We don't let them to come in. We simply say, uh, he usually, usually say that, you know, uh, we've been banned to sell anything, uh, uh, to you. So they walk away. They had lots of other options in those premises area. Uh, if every premises do the same thing, they can completely remove those people from this area. Um, he knew those individuals. He can clearly see, and they don't, they've never been sold anything from our premises very long time. So we are happy to take those conditions. Yeah. Um, the next one is the bottle marking. It's, it's one of the things keeps my client awake every day. Because he doesn't want to fail on any of these new conditions. Yeah. It's a lot of conditions that mentioned about the mental health issues. It was really effective. And his age, the problem we have with the, the, the bottle marking is either we have to write it down with a marker pen, or we have to put the sticker on and you can see some of the photographs. I don't know whether you have color photographs. I see it clearly. If the, if you don't sell the bottle for three weeks or a little longer than that, I think face out label starts to come off. So. He employed two people, a person twice a week, goes through the bottles, make sure rewrite them or put the stickers back on. And it is in this day and age, we are unnecessarily doing this when we don't sell. What is the problem makers buying from the premises? So. And the other thing he feels that anybody can write a name and address on a bottle and give it to the wrong person. So it's a very highly competitive area. High Street North is a very competitive area. The competitors can't do anything for against other premises. So he worries if somebody write his name and address and serve it to the wrong person, he might be in trouble. On the other hand, I will ask the authorities, if they find somebody with a can in their hand, with our shop's name and address, it is not a direct evidence that we serve to that person. You know, labels can be switched and somebody else might put the name on it. And we could have served it to somebody, a reasonably good person, and they have transferred to the other person. So if there is no legal ground, why we have to enforce that condition and put the business under not only the excessive pressure, but also a situation where he can be accused for selling to a troublemaker, but the label could have been written down by some other premises. It can happen here. So that is why we are not here to undermine any licensing objectives. We want to work with the authorities. But at the same time, he doesn't want to risk his license and he doesn't want another review hearing. That is the main reason for this application, Jeff. So alcohol, instead of that label marking, alcohol will not be served to any known problem maker or street drinkers. So in this way, we're not going to serve to the wrong person. Necessary labeling is extra burden on the business. And I don't think we can achieve much on that, Jeff. That's the reason we want to change it. Condition number five is about the personal license holder. I'm glad officers agree that. One of the main issues he has with that condition is he used to employ people who finish universities and trying to find a job. They work there for six months, one year before they go into the carrier. They don't normally go for the personal license training, sit for the exam, police clearance, and they are not interested. He has to stop all this employment these days because the couple of conditions are designed. Say, for example, there are some shops on the high street. They have double frontier stores chair, and they have three, four people working at any one point of time. If that is the case, they can have a supervisor and two staff or three staff. So supervisor has a full access to the CCTV and he's a personal license holder. And so the other staff, they can work under them under the supervision. His store is a very small, about two and a half, three meter wide. It's a very small store. Most of the time, there's one person runs the business. So if everybody has to have personal license, it means every single staff has to have a personal license and every single staff have to have full access to the CCTV. So the personal license, at the moment, all of our staff are personal license holders. Every single one. So could you just repeat that again? All your staff have personal license holders. Okay, and how many staff are there? Three. Three. Permanent, take and shift between the three. Plus my client. So that's four. Four, including him four. All of them are personal license holders, but he has to, he used to provide employment for the youngsters when they come for the work experience, six months, one year. We stopped doing that because of this condition. Unless they have a personal license, we can't do that. Instead of that, what we are saying is, we have a strict training program. And chair, we have to retrain them every three months. This means four times a year. We have to retrain them according to this condition. That is a lot better than having a personal license chair. This is specific training just for these premises and just for our condition. It's not a generic training provided under the personal license. So we would like to have the personal license for the DPS and license. He works seven days a week on the premises, and he's there most of the time. When he's not around, he's conductable. And if he's not there, there's a responsible person on the premises. We can guarantee that to the HR. And as I said, he can, you know, we can take as a condition that is a nominated person. If the personal license holder is not there, we're not going to put anybody behind the counter without a full training. That is a condition we are happy to take. The last one is the CCTV condition. We want to give the CCTV to the police in any crisis. CCTV is a valid. We respect that. We want to give that. The reason we want to change this condition exactly for that, because this condition is undermines the licensing objective. That is what our argument is, because for the current this scale of this business, we have to give full access of the CCTV to all the staff. If the staff made any mistake or did something wrong, they have, you know, if they give full access, they can delete the recordings here. That will put my client in a vulnerable situation. So this is why what my client is asking is one of the condition is stressing out every single day. He was saying he's there seven days a week. When he is there, he can give the full, he can show CCTV recordings fully, not a problem. But he doesn't want to give full access to every single staff because somebody delete the recording. He will lose the license and the police won't get the recordings. So you want to have the full access just for him. If the CCTV is needed, he will provide the recordings within 24 hours. Or if that's very urgent, he's happy to give the hand. Police can take the hard drive away. If they are, if they have any doubt that we're going to tamper it, you can take the hard drive away. We are happy to provide that. But the current, the way the condition is present now is undermine the licensing objectives because our staff, if they delete it, then nobody get the recordings and he will lose the license. And he knew if the CCTV condition is failed, they didn't provide the recordings. That's a straightforward review. And there's no excuse for that. So he's willing to give you, he wants to give the recording to the police. I just want to stress that again here. He wants to give the hard drive or the recording to the police. That is the reason he wants the change. So none of the changes we are asking today chair, like increasing the hours or anything. It just make a small amendments to the existing conditions. So it can be practically possible. And we really, this is the thing he repeated all the time. He never had any problem in the last 24 years. He doesn't want any problem in the past. He's in a man with a certain age. He doesn't want any issues. So he wants to make sure the conditions are practically possible and he wants everything clean so he can comply with the conditions and promote the licensing objectives. Again, going back to the the police statement, I know it's a general general police was concerned about strong beers and the miniatures. We don't want that. We don't sell that. That's got nothing to do with this premises. Yeah. Again, the representations. It's not directly explaining the conditions and the proposals we are putting forward today. The representation is not directly giving us the answer why this is undermining. I know officers accept some of the conditions, some of the changes. We appreciate that chair. The mental health issue. The reason he has to put this application in the short period of time chair is because of the stress of worrying how these conditions it's going to fail him in the future. So that's the main reason he put this before anything happens. And also the changes we are asking. It's not going to change that the status quo. The, the, the, the CCTV condition, we still going to provide it. Personal license trainings. We have better training than the personal license at the moment. Single cans. We are, we don't want to sell single cans, but the street drinkers won't. We just want to force the customers to buy excessive alcohol. So that's why we, we, we want to keep this minimum to can for 500 or below, which is a bigger bottles and 35. We are not setting a precedence chair. It's already there. It's available on the street. And on top of that, we are not going to allow the street drinkers to our premises. So he's just asking to do a reasonably, a business peacefully. And this is his livelihood in the data. So he asking, please unfair. Don't treat him unfairly. There are some premises that are competitors doing the similar thing. What he's asked for data. Um, just, just to wrap it up. Um, we sincerely asked the committee to consider the good track record of my client. I know he made a mistake in April. But before that, there was not a single failure, no failed test purchases. 24 hours. There's no other issues. This only when there was an emergency situation, this problem came. So we are urging the committee to see the, uh, uh, track record. And none of these proposals are going to undermine the licensing objective chair. Therefore, this application should be granted. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Steve, or maybe Mandeep on page eight comments of the legal officer. Paragraph. Um, the agent has said that the license holder would just wants his business to match other business with regards to certain conditions, ie the 20 CL, the selling there of, and CCTV, and what have you. Can you just read out what that says? Because is, is that this is a, um, a legal precedence, isn't it? Where it says members of the subcommittee paragraph four page eight under the comments of a legal officer. Do you reference in the paragraph where it states that each application has to be considered? That's the one. Yes. So it is noted. And so that. Yeah. So it says, um, members of the subcommittee should note that each application within this within the C. I said, needs to be considered on its own merits. So for a statement to come from you with regards to his business matching others who have certain conditions like the 20 CL and CCTV, it does not come into play here. So we have to make our own decisions and not based on the fact that he wants to match other businesses in, in the area. So let's move on from that. Mm-hmm. Council of the House, any questions? Um, okay. Let's start with the first one, then. That because this review and so on arose because Mr. Santana Raja was not present in the shop. And therefore, there was nobody who could do the CCTV and so on. Now, how will you deal with that? It, it's not going to be a daily thing that happens, is it? It's an exception. But nevertheless, there would need to be somebody there who was nominated or trained. You would need to have somebody. Let's say you say you can't have train everybody in CCTV, but how would, how are you planning to manage that? Um, he's, he works there seven days a week. Um, so the afternoon shift, um, part of the afternoon shift covered by this is staff. Sometimes he comes in later hours if the shop is busy. So whenever he's there, he can do everything. Um, when he's not there, the staff are fully trained, um, um, be trained to conditions and everything. It's just the CCTV. Um, he's, he's worrying that give that full access to the CCTV to every single staff. Um, because most of the time premise is managed by one staff. So if that's the case, we have to give access to every single staff, the full CCTV access. We are nothing trying to hide from the officers or anything. We can always provide the CCTV full recording within 24 hours. Who would be, who would have access to the CCTV then? Because it's thinking about situations, for example, where you're saying you don't want all the staff to access it. But say if there was situations of where staff weren't available and an incident occurred, and then somebody had to access the CCTV for an officer. Yeah. You know, you, you're kind of, it's think it's kind of, you know, that, that doesn't really make sense. I'm just pointing that out for your, you know, as, as a factor that you need to consider. We have heard that could be urgent. It could be. Yeah. Anything can happen, you know, anytime. So if you don't have that flexibility. Because he's not saying that nobody else apart from him can have the access. He, he can have some of the permanent long-term staff, someone he can trust, maybe one or two staff from his team. Dominator. Yes. But the, the, because the conditions are followed word by word. Say, for example, if you have new staff and we have to give him the full access to, because he can, he might be after the training. He might be managed by himself for a short period of time. So according to the condition, he has to give full access to it. And if the person messed up the CCTV, then that's a failure. Yeah. Can I just. Sorry. Sorry. Do you mind? No, do, do. Just so unclear. You have. Four members of staff that work. In the premises at any given time. All four members of staff have personal license. Yeah. All members of staff have three monthly trainings. Within that training are, is there any segment of that training that includes CCTV? There is. Yes. Right. So four times a year, four members of staff have training with the CC segmentation that's how to use and be able to download. Exactly. Now, you're saying he's taking it verbatim, word for word. Now, it's not every day, every week, every month, every six months, that an incident happens. And what we're saying, or what I believe the police and the licensing team are trying to say, is that when an incident happens, which, when was the last time you had an incident? I think there was no incident. Long time. Exactly. So if they have training, it's a matter of the police turning up and said, I need this now. So I don't see what the problem is. We're not saying that we're asking every day, every week, every month, a member of staff to download. Or in fact, it's not even for the person dealing with the CCTV in your shop at that time to go through rooms and rooms of footage. If something happens and they come down, it's just a matter of putting a stick and downloading it and they will take it away. So I think you're looking at this and maybe correct me if I'm wrong, please. Sometimes it's not even downloading it on the day. It means, all it means is your staff member can get access to it so we can see it. Yeah. Day. So basically, sometimes it's just put a code in, give them, and they go, put a date or put a time in and see it live on the screen. Sometimes that's, that's what we believe is being able to operate it. However, if we need a copy, we would make, we may come back for the copy for it as long as we've seen it. This one. So the downloading of. Did it assist if the condition was amended slightly then? I don't know. It says work and download CCTV. Yeah. Access and, and if necessary. Present or available. No, Chair, we understand. That's, it's a very simple request. Could we, could my legal officer just finish? Yeah, no, I'm just thinking practically, Colin, is that something that's, because I'm just looking at the wording. It says work and down. Member staff is present. Who's work and download CCTV. Is that the condition that can, they have to be able to download it? Yeah. Yeah. It says work and download if requested. So that's on the premises. So would access be. Could it be rather than shall be present during the permitted hours, shall be present or available? So that if it was required, they could be called in quickly. No. That wouldn't work. That wouldn't work. We could be waiting another half an hour. Fair then. Yeah. Fair. Fair. But if you're saying that sometimes it's a question of viewing it, even if they can't download it on the day, is it can access, make sure that the staff member can access it for you and then perhaps the download could be. Yeah. What we could do is word it in the sense, in the way that would available or something like that. Yeah. So they, so acts, so access is available. Yeah. Is that better? Yeah. Yeah. What would you be happy with that? Yeah, because I mean, we, we could, if we're really concerned about, we can video the live viewing, which we, which we do. And then we can say, we need to download you by tomorrow. We often do that. So we're not here to stress you out. No. I'll compromise you. It's fine. Okay. It's, it's the office. If I be happy to accommodate that, the problem we have here, the DVR and everything is in the office. If you have to follow exactly the legal officer pointed out, we have to download is a full access. Okay. That's fine. So we're, so this is something the committee will have to decide. And the legal officers on top of this, and they're aware, but it's getting that tweaking of the wording. Correct. That will make everyone happy. Yeah. So I'm going to move on from there. Counselor. Would you like to continue that? That's fine. Because that was, that was one of the key ones. Others might want to ask similar, but I was just thinking about now the 20 CL, you know, what sort of sales would you be making of that? How important is it? But two other premise out of the five, there are two other that sell 20 CL. One of them has body marking. If I took that incorrectly. Um, so, so how important is that 20 CL to your sales? How often do you make them? You say you're losing customers by not being able to make those sales. Could you make your case 20 CL? Yeah. Thank you. And I take your, your, your statement. I respect that. That is, is the case by case basis. I'm not going to talk about other premises anymore. It's just in our case, because we are accepting a condition saying we're not going to allow any troublemakers to the premises. We're going to stop that. We, I mean, that's the status for the last 10 years. So that just to answer your question here, the most of the people signed those petitions are his regular customers for last 10 years or more since the review. Some of them don't come back to his store. For reasons, but they do normally buy that the 20 CL. They do normally buy that 20 CL couple of 20 because they regulate how much they drink and they trying to control it. That's, that's some of the people who signed the petitions and there's few others by the bigger bottle. I don't want to confuse these two methods, but the people who signed those petitions more than half of them. They used to buy those 20 CL that's his regular customers comes to his premises, some of his friends is for very, very long time. So that is why we are not going to undermine the licensing objective by doing that, because we are not going to serve it to the wrong person. We have CCTVs rolling all the time. It's just for the handful of people. He has a fixed customer base, and that was completely turned upside down since the review. That is why we're trying to keep those some of those customers. Yeah, and that and and because he's losing those those people don't come to his store. They are not even buying some other groceries as well. So it's it's it's a very competitive area. So it is doing all the right thing. He just asked him a little bit of relax so he can actually survive. Okay, thank you. I'm just on that note. Some owners of the committee have in fact read the commission, the petition, and you found that you've read. Yes, yes. And so do I say just just so we can get that out of the way. Now, Councillor Raj, did you have some questions regarding the petition? Yeah, in a roundabout sort of way, if I can just go and have a great question. Thank you. After regular customers that signed the petition, what percentage of them purchase alcohol on a regular basis of those that submit the petition? So outside the people? No, of the people that signed the petition, what percentage would you say buy alcohol all the time, occasionally, on a very regular basis? Yeah. So they regularly buy alcohol from you, all of the people? Yeah, they're working on a percentage, they all. Yeah. Thank you. And what percentage of the overall business is, would you say, is alcohol based? Overall, chocolate, alcohol level. Yeah, about 10 to 15%. So 10 to 15% of the overall business is alcohol, pure alcohol based. This is the sorry, sorry to talk about your council. We have, I would say 25, we have four lines of product line. Both. And one of the product line is 75% of the one product line is alcohol, one shelving is alcohol. So we have three and a quarter groceries. So, because these people don't come for the alcohol and they're stopping it, we are losing the gross outside. So that's right. So what percentage did you say for? Overall? Around 20%. 20% of the business is basically alcohol based, or sales rather I should say. Yeah. So that leads me back to the petition, when you're saying they're the gentleman's regular customers over a long period, which is really good. And they all buy alcohol. So the percentage of the petition, of the people that signed the petition, all buy alcohol. That's quite a large part of the client base, isn't it? No, the people who signed the petitions, these people, lots, lots of them don't come to us for alcohol because of the conditions. What I was saying was, you said everybody on the petition purchases alcohol when they're in there for other reasons. So that makes that quite a high percentage of all the people that signed the petition, quite a high percentage. That's 100%. Yeah. And 25, 20 or 25% of the business overall is alcohol. Don't you find that a bit strange? I think he said 10 to 15% is the percentage of the business where they sell alcohol, but obviously the petitions are representative of people that have signed it, not the whole, not everybody. So he's saying that people who signed it have purchased alcohol. That's correct. They used to. They are our regular customers and they were pushing that to change something. Otherwise they're going to walk away. And some of the people don't come to us anymore. A few of them still come to us because they are his friends. And for alcohol, they go to the other shops because if they have to buy certain bottles, they had to buy two. They don't want to do that. So they just come and talk to them, buy some other things and walk away. Some customers we lost completely. So it's just the practical issues. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Final question. Well, you've been talking about mental health. Yes. And how the business is affecting mental health wise. Am I right in thinking then that's all there with the GP general practitioner? So the general practitioner has got it documented that there are mental health issues related to the business. Yeah, it is. It is true, counselor, but he believes he's been unfairly burdened. Some of the conditions which keep him awake is stressful. Those say, for example, the CCTV conditions he was talking about. He was worrying about that condition every single day if any of his staff because at the moment staff can do anything. for the CCTV and because they have to download it, they have to give a copy. He has full. Are you sort of sorry for interrupting? No, no, please. No, no. Um, my question was basically, is the GP aware of the mental health issues? Um, is he receiving treatment for mental health issues? It's, it's not like he is, it's not a condition that he has to go and take medications. Right. Okay. It's just a stressful situation. But you included this. Yes. As evidence. As evidence that people. So what was basically asking was, is there actual real evidence of mental health issues? No, he's, he's worrying about it every single day. Right. But it's not something he has to go and get a treatment. Right. Straight away. But he's always right. If the majority of business owners that run their own small businesses. Yeah. Yeah. And again, on the report, he's saying that as a majority of the business owners, because of these issues. Understand that. They're not all of them getting the help from the GP straight away is, is something builds up and they put them in a, a very vulnerable city. So part of the question on this subject, has he sought help from the GP with regards to the mental health? Okay. Right. Thank you. And final question. Three other staff members on the premises of, of various shift patterns and things. I assume all the, I assume all the three staff members are trustworthy. Um, things that are knowledge. Yes. They, they, we, we, we trust them, but you can only trust somebody. Yes. You can never trust them. You can't trust them a hundred percent. And, uh, when people make mistakes, they can change, they can do something and, you know, face value. They're happy. They're, they trustworthy, but anything can happen. There are lots of incidents. And I mean, the management, they do certain things. So that's, that's the worry he has because at the moment they have full access to office, where the safe is, where the CCTV, where the recorder is. Everybody has full access to everything, which put him in a very vulnerable situation. He, he goes home and time to time, he comes back. That's the stress we are talking about. Just to see, you know, anything happen to my CCTV, I will lose my license. Yeah, I understand. I just want to streamline this condition. Otherwise we wouldn't be rushing it straight away. He would have an appeal against the decision. If he's against the conditions last time, he didn't. He took the mistake. He took it head on. He just, he's full accepted it. He complied with it. But now he's coming back to you, asking him to streamline it so he can peacefully run his business. Thank you. How long were the three members of staff being employed? How long staffing? One of them, one year. Yeah. Other ones, three months, six months, around my wife. Yeah. So it's, it's one of them is one year and three, three months, three months. And the other is, it's himself and wife as well. Right. That person. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Marshall. Yes. Let's go ahead. That's okay. Go ahead. Just, you were referring to having lost some customers. Right. Now, you might not be able to answer this, but did you, do you feel that that was because of the suspension of the alcohol license for a month? Or do you feel it's because of the conditions since then? Is it possible to make any distinction? Um, it's both counselor. It's a both of them. Uh, but it's, uh, he, I'm, I'm just telling you the conversation I had with him before the situation, um, because people do understand the subset suspension. They come back after that, but it's a condition. It's the one. For seem to lose most of them. Um, it's just that the 35 CL and the, uh, the bigger ones in two. Those are the ones making to lose the customers are the other conditions. You make him a little bit of vulnerable situation. So that's, that's the thing. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much. Thank you. No, that's, that's fine. Um, right. So can you confirm what, um, percentage of AB, ABV is being sold at your premises at the moment? I'm getting, uh, below 6%. Right. That's not what you said earlier. You said 6.5. That was my mistake. Sorry, counselor. That's my mistake. So I'm asking you. Yeah. That's okay. What is the highest? 6. 6%. So if I was to go there, there'd be no 6.5 apart from the Dragonstown and the Guinness Extra. The Dragonstown different. Yes. Yes. And Guinness Extra different, but everything else 6%. Okay. Now, um, this is for you Rajesh. Uh, what is your understanding of the C-I-Z? Yes sir. What is your understanding of the C-I-Z? Communitive Impact Zone. Yes sir. What do you understand by that? Can I explain to me what is C-I-Z? Yeah. Don't give them the answer. Just explain. In a C-I-Z? In that zone. Yeah. Yeah. The risky area. The risky area, I call you a more troubled area. So you say it's a more troubled area. And why do you say that? Why do you think it's a troubled area? That's what you say, in my opinion. Yeah. In the area, my show the area, my... Yeah. So there's a lot of problems in that area. problems in that area yeah that area yeah and particularly in my shop at that area no not particularly your shop but you do see a lot of street drinkers walking around the area yeah and that's what you think is causing the problem yeah yeah so a lot of people drunk and walking around and causing problems okay thank you um and could you tell me what are the four licensing objectives crime and disorder I'm sorry crime and disorder crime and disorder public safety uh public notions and protect from the children children from harm so you've got your challenge 25 certificates up now yeah yeah you have all right um just a little bit on again going back this mental health issue because I want it noted that we do take this serious and we're not saying that you are necessarily being burdened by this per se and this is more of a some stuff that your agent brought up to put into your agenda but how is it impacting your daily life because we know pandemic but that's like four years ago so I don't really want to hear much about that but the recovery thereof so how is this stressful environment affecting your your personal life and your well-being yeah my sales is going every day every time and I'm doing now less than half what I do last year and January so you're making less money and half yeah example my sales before 2000 January now I am doing only eight contract nine so could you could you just um say it's very hard for me to understand him what he's saying is the uh his his sale has to be reduced by less than 50 percent since since since the conditions since the review so in two months you've lost 50 percent of your income yes predominantly from alcohol not be just based on the alcohol as I previously mentioned yeah you've lost customers customers buy groceries so 50 you say that you've lost within the last two months so um and that is obviously paying playing on your mind because you've got to pay your staff your utilities okay so just going back to the conditions my last question the conditions that we imposed at the review hearing um which you agreed um you're now saying that two months in that because of the impact it has caused your business reviewed that that us to review the conditions to make them easier and more flexible for you but do you see why we put them there in the first place do you understand why we put them there in the first place can i explain yes yeah um condition important they just ask me and depending on there when you get yeah yeah because i can't follow some of the conditions that's where um officially my dv aren't obese so i can't give the key to every staff for the office sorry what he's trying to do is some of the conditions he if i explain a little bit why he went to india maybe he didn't explain that his um his uh i think he will explain the relationship one of his close relatives suddenly went into end-of-life care india that is why he dropped everything has to fly before the person passed away and during the reviewing process he was dealing with that death so he he didn't have a right state of mind to think whether what advice he had um and even for the review he didn't receive a proper legal advice um according to him so now he's he took everything on board he started to follow everything uh when he approached me first thing he said he's so scared because everybody has full access to his uh safe his office cctv everything and i want to comply i want to give the cctv i want to keep that securely so anything against me or anything useful for police i have a clear evidence i want to protect all these things at the same time i just want to keep the business running so he took it on board at the time without him realizing the full impact of the condition now running two months three months he is is think he's in a vulnerable situation he's struggling okay uh my last question um you're the agent you're the one that's helping him with the training yes so he's actually um he's actually employed you taking your agency on board to give him the guidance which he will have going forward right okay thank you i have no further questions chair can i just point something out so page 27 of the data is the letter um the license holder following the last review hearing so it on page 27 of paragraph f modified conditions right it sort of sets out in the decision what happened at the hearing in respect to the conditions so just to note that say for condition two and 17 what's referred to all conditions were agreed by the license holder and the council's licensing team before the hearing commenced um and then obviously it goes into sort of the detail of that so currently condition two um the license holder was prepared to accept a condition relation to 20 cl bottles at that time um and then obviously there was a condition related training for condition 17 so i just thought i'd point that out that's what occurred last time i don't know if it was the same agent represented can i also add that one to it and um according to him um the it is right last hearing i don't know if he said can be able to confirm that it was agreed there was no bottle marking and 20 cl but when we get the license document it goes on the license um could you just sorry could you just um repeat that and a bit louder please i'm really struggling basically so um yeah um i agree with the legal officer um he told me that there was few confusions um soon after the hearing and the conversation during the hearing the last review hearing i'm talking about he agreed to the 20 cl at that time um and i know it's end of the day is that committee's decision is not his decision yes um and uh the officers uh i don't know which officer agreed to remove the bottle marking absolutely but the committee decided to add that at that time so he mentioned to me i don't know how much he understood during the process but uh i think obviously i think it's office 100 at that time probably i'm not sure yeah as he solves his own question um the conditions may have been agreed outside of the hearing however members decided to impose their conditions before they were on the license or are on the license right okay i have no further questions stopped house just one more which of these conditions that we've imposed troubles your business most two of them uh two um cctv which is a stressful condition for him keeps him wake every day um and the the 20 cl um all right thank you yeah okay no further right so colin any questions to the i only have one really um so how many people do you say you're employing at the premises at the moment not including you and your wife did you say yeah another two people are you the designated premises supervisor so and that and you said you're there a lot of the time aren't you so you you're there all day you might go home for a little while then then you you come back close up is that what i've heard yeah sometimes you come back sometimes you come back okay so person's only going to be there for a short space of time and there's only one maybe two people to operate cctv so it's not a whole range of people that are going to operate cctv it's one or two specific people that that's fine without you so you're you you don't trust that person to download to see that nominated person to download so sometimes we are monitoring this and if there was like you're employing 10 people but just one basically one person when you're not there but you're there nine percent of the time so it's only a little snippet that one person's going to make a mistake yeah because the condition is uh we are minding the monitoring this happen also maybe put the loop point too yeah because he's saying that he's monitor the staff as well whether they are following everything writing the refusal even they are on the team we have to monitor them so maybe they can't find the loop if they find any if they if they made any mistake and the staff just went and deleted the cctv he would only leave them if they claimed then would they not make that error no no it's not the error sabotaging the cctv that's what he's thinking that one person's got a personal license holder he's a personal license holder as you said at the moment yeah yeah so i don't see that being too onerous and to being too stressful really because and that's only on the premise that an officer from the council um police yes comes and asks for that information so there's no other reason for them to access that cctv apart from on those specific occasions i mean they they will operate it or we have to operate so when you come to the obvious the premise you will operate yourself or the other staff will you operate well no it's not it's not for us to operate the cctv it's it's it's all right but what i'm saying is if you had a a range of staff that your premises say 10 i i get it but there's one basically you you're not you're there in 90 of the time i don't know if you're there at the same time as your wife she's a personal license holder so you're both you've got an investment in that premises and you've got one maybe two employees so you're only asking one person to know what they're doing with the cctv it's it's i don't see that being too onerous really maybe we didn't explain that properly um officer it's not they um they are not being fully trained uh it's not the training issue we are talking about they know they're fully trained how to operate if they purposely delete it because sometimes if they made any mistake i would why would that occur it happens very often in lots of premises they sometimes handle money and do something they go and delete the recording they won't have a stretch card out put in the wallet they go and stop the recording and do that it happens very often most of the premises with with great respect business owners facing this almost every week lots of people having that issue so that is what he's worrying um how often is the cctv checked yeah you know the reality is is that that yes that is a possibility yes but the but this is a condition that we have on a lot of premises that this very reason if the police or officers need to access it if an incident occurs so shouldn't the cctv be monitored anyway to make sure it's not being deleted by the owner yes question i'm posing because that exercise would have to be undertaken to make sure that everything's running efficiently and there's no problems if there was a pattern being identified of say days being deleted without the owner's knowledge then should surely that should be something that should be he should be regulating yeah if he said like a day is being deleted of course he can pick it up he checked the cctv because he monitors staff on a regular basis say for example a one hour window or half an hour window is gone it's very hard to find out unless they go through the whole video how does that counteract what you've asked for which is the 24 hours to provide the was it download download the cctv how does that eradicate that problem anyway it's because we are not going to give full downloading full access to all the staff probably his wife himself maybe another person they have full access to it so others still doing it they can show the cctv but the condition is where that they have to have downloaded so if they able to download it they can go into the system they have to go and interrogate the system that is how the condition is being murdered that is the risky part but we are happy to check the chairs already said to you that this is like a this obviously you've not had and when was the last time you had an incident we haven't had it yeah so i mean it's it's a possibility that might happen but it's not a regular thing so it might be one occasion that that member of staff might need to have the access for the police and the officers said well you know it's not even if there's a download issue they they could actually record it themselves by viewing it viewing it so okay yeah i think chair just i think you've heard yes he said i think it's a massive view whether you fit us yeah reasonable in terms of what's been that yes i just thank you um we are happy to keep all staff access to show the cctv that's fine yeah that's it it said downloading is so that's fine that's fine okay thank you very very much uh ian don't stress too much if it was that serious you volunteered to surrender your hard drive yes that would be one of because if we take your hard drive yes it basically closes your business because it's a condition of your license so that would be our last result we're well aware we've got that power to seize your hard drive um that would be our last result we've we've come to you and work with you let's just say are you open 24 hours no we don't perhaps if a really serious incident happens outside are we gonna forcibly open your premises to get extra hard drive no you have to apply some common sense to this okay so if we want to view your cctv we'd like to view your cctv view yeah being the operative word okay all right um are there any further questions for the um no there's no questions i just i just wanted to share whether you want to just hear from the officers how they would want this condition work so you've just you know there right but excuse me if they're saying that they can um content with access then would they want a provision about download being provided or the hard drive like what what would you prefer to see is just so that we can note it yes that's difficult they're loading 24 hours okay be happy with that be happy with that just to put in the record okay that's fine yes immediate access to be received immediate access to view yeah yeah and then it's on request yeah yeah some wording of that's fair enough okay yeah so there is no summing up by any party on a variation is there no they can't they can so they can sort of yeah would it be the so um right is there a little sum up you would like to do before we go into adjournment yeah um very briefly uh yeah um i explained everything uh in in detail we had a detail conversation it's it's he just wanted to stress that we are not here to uh um destroy the or the damage the progress the authorities made on the street he feel much more safer than before the street is much more cleaner um he was working he felt that before like before a pandemic he was the only one trying to stop the uh street drinkers from the premises but look but nowadays lots of premises are doing it so he is not trying to sabotage or damage the progress made on the street which helps him as well uh only thing is he is trying to avoid the practical issues that is the reason for the application and we are sorry that we have to come up with this application very quickly because of all the the the urgent issues we had with this day-to-day business so that's the reason it was made very short after the review um and he got a very good track record in the past thank you thank you okay um we are going to adjourn now um so if you'd like to take a when when we adjourn take a seat outside we will make a decision today so um we will be calling you back back into be for the meeting to be reconvened um and you will have your decision then uh marissa can we now adjourn this human can i just um sorry i should have did ask yeah sort of it did you want to hear anything final from the officers about the 20 cl still being a proposal i think we covered that earlier something additional that you want to comment on what's been said now there's other premises in the area with 35 cl and i i i stressed that i had 35 cl is what i what the decision was when it was put on in review i was we were good with that decision and i was happy with that decision so just for clarity from as the agent put forward from the last hearing for regarding the confusion around conditions page 27 uh halfway down the page the last paragraphs details in respect to the additional conditions the license holder prepared to accept the conditions restricting the size of the bottles to 20 cl however however members were guided by the council's license team who stated that 20 cl will not price out the street drinkers and the 35 cl will be effective in preventing street drinking and it goes on to the other conditions while there if you did want to refer to that chair lovely thank you very much any further questions okay marissa this this meeting is now adjourned thank you so thank you everyone for your patience we have made a decision and i'm going to pass you to tell you what our decision is thank you this is a summary of the decision i'll outline what the there's been modification to conditions i'll outline those and then the full decision with the reasons will be sent in writing in five working days so the decision is as followed the members have decided to modify the conditions as for condition number two for the condition that spirit should not be sold in bottles less than 35 centilitre that condition will remain on the premises as it is condition three will be amended that beers lagers stouts and ciders of 500 millilitres inclusive or less shall be sold in a minimum passage to the condition four which was the uh all alcohol products to be marked with a label on mark pen stating the name and address of the shop that condition will be removed condition five will be amended so it states a personal license holder slash yes slash license holder and nominated person should be present at all times during licensing hours and then condition eight relating to eight b related to the cctv that will be amended so that it states that officers will be provided immediate access on request and the download if request is provided in 24 hours so the full wording will be set out in the decision when you receive it okay thank you very much thank you officers thank you for all the hard work and this meeting is now thank you thank you thank you thank you