Decision

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for a review of a premises licence under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003

PREMISES: Swan News t/a UR Local, 3 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham TW13 4DX (‘the Premises’)

APPLICANT:   Bob Dear, Licensing Enforcement, Regulatory Enforcement Officer, London Borough of Hounslow, Licensing Authority

TAKE NOTICE THAT ON 15 October 2026 following a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or “Panel”),

HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing Authority for the Premises RESOLVED that:

On review of the premises licence for Swan News t/a UR Local, 3 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham, TW13 4DX, the premises licence is REVOKED.

REASONS:

Introduction

1. The Panel convened to determine an application for a review of the premises licence for Swan News t/a UR Local, 3 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham, TW13 4DX, pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.
2. The application was made by Hounslow Licensing Enforcement (Appendix A), which sought a review of the Premises Licence due to serious concerns that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective was being undermined. The Applicant invited the Panel to consider revocation of the Premises Licence.
3. No other representations were received.
4. The Premises Licence Holder was present and represented and suggested the licence be suspended, subject to conditions, on this occasion rather than be revoked.
5. The Premises Licence allowed for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises (the licensable activity) on weekdays between the hours of 08:00 to 23:00. Those hours were 10:00 to 22:30 on a Sunday. The Panel took all relevant matters into consideration, including the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State's Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy and all written and oral representations presented during the hearing.

Licensing Panel hearing

1. At the start of the hearing the Chair informed those in attendance that one member of the Licensing Panel was absent. The Chair further explained that, pursuant to paragraph 11.1 of the London Borough of Hounslow Constitution, Part 4B Committee Procedure Rules, the quorum for a panel comprising three members is two members. The Panel was therefore quorate and able to proceed with the hearing.
2. During the licensing panel hearing the facts giving rise to the review application were set out by the Licensing Officer. The Applicant then presented its case in support of the review application. The Premises Licence Holder did not materially dispute that illicit tobacco products had been discovered within the Premises but disputed the inferences to be drawn from those facts and submitted that revocation was not an appropriate or proportionate outcome.

Submissions by the Applicant

1. The Applicant outlined the circumstances giving rise to the review application and referred the Panel to the evidence contained within the review bundle.
2. The Applicant submitted that authorised officers attended the Premises and discovered illicit tobacco products during an inspection of the Premises.
3. The Applicant submitted that the illicit tobacco products were concealed behind the sales counter and that the concealment of the products was a significant aggravating feature.
4. The Applicant further relied upon the presence of Kamagra products found during the inspection and submitted that these raised additional concerns regarding management oversight and regulatory compliance within the Premises.
5. The Applicant submitted that the sale or storage of illicit tobacco products constituted serious criminal conduct and directly engaged the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.
6. The Applicant submitted that the Premises Licence Holder was personally involved in the acquisition of the stock and relied upon the evidence given regarding the purchase of the products and the potential profit margins associated with their sale.
7. The Applicant further submitted that the explanations provided by the Premises Licence Holder failed to satisfactorily explain the presence of the products or the circumstances in which they were concealed.
8. The Applicant submitted that responsibility for the offending had been minimised and that insufficient accountability had been demonstrated.
9. The Applicant referred the Panel to paragraphs 11.28 and 11.29 of the Secretary of State's Guidance, which identify the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and goods as conduct which should be treated particularly seriously and in respect of which revocation should be seriously considered even in the first instance.
10. The Applicant submitted that the remedial measures and documentation produced by the Premises Licence Holder following the inspection should be afforded limited weight because they had largely been introduced after the Premises Licence Holder had become aware of the enforcement action and review proceedings.
11. The Applicant submitted that the circumstances demonstrated serious failings in the management and operation of the Premises and invited the Panel to conclude that revocation of the Premises Licence was the only appropriate and proportionate outcome for the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

Submissions by the Premises Licence Holder (PLH)

1. The Premises Licence Holder attended the hearing and was represented.
2. The Premises Licence Holder accepted that the products had been found within the Premises, expressed regret regarding the circumstances giving rise to the review application and submitted that there had been no intention to undermine the licensing objectives.
3. The Premises Licence Holder relied upon supplementary evidence including training records, refusals registers, incident logs, authorisation records and other compliance documentation.
4. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that these records demonstrated that improvements had been implemented following the inspection and that measures were now in place to promote the licensing objectives.
5. The Premises Licence Holder also relied upon the witness statement and inspection evidence of Mr Rose and submitted that this demonstrated the existence of compliance measures and improvements implemented following the inspection.
6. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that the Premises was now operating in a compliant manner and that confidence in the management of the business ought to be restored.
7. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that revocation would be disproportionate in all the circumstances and invited the Panel to consider alternatives available under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003.
8. In particular, the Premises Licence Holder submitted that a period of suspension, together with additional conditions, would be sufficient to address the concerns identified by the Applicant and promote the licensing objectives going forward.
9. The Premises Licence Holder further relied upon paragraph 1.18 of the Secretary of State's Guidance and submitted that the Panel should have regard to business growth, economic benefits and the impact that revocation would have upon the business.
10. The Premises Licence Holder invited the Panel to conclude that the remedial measures implemented since the inspection demonstrated a commitment to future compliance and that revocation of the Premises Licence was neither necessary nor proportionate.

Summing up by the parties

1. The Applicant submitted that the concealment of illicit tobacco products within the Premises constituted serious criminal conduct and that the explanations provided by the Premises Licence Holder failed to adequately account for the offending. The Applicant invited the Panel to revoke the Premises Licence.
2. The Premises Licence Holder submitted that significant remedial measures had been implemented following the inspection, relied upon the supplementary evidence and witness evidence, and invited the Panel to conclude that suspension of the licence, together with conditions, would be a more proportionate outcome than revocation.
3. The Applicant and the Premises Licence Holder were each given the opportunity to make final submissions before the Panel retired to deliberate.

Decision

1. The Licensing Panel carefully considered all relevant information including:
2. The Licensing Act 2003;
3. The Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, in particular paragraphs 1.18, 11.28 and 11.29;
4. The London Borough of Hounslow Statement of Licensing Policy;
5. The Human Rights Act 1998;
6. The written and oral representations made at the hearing; and
7. All documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundle together with the supplementary evidence submitted on behalf of the Premises.
8. The Panel approached this review by reference to section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Panel reminded itself that the purpose of a review is not to punish a premises licence holder for past conduct. Rather, the Panel's task is to determine what steps are appropriate and proportionate, so as to be necessary in the individual circumstances of the case, for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
9. The Panel noted that the Premises Licence Holder did not materially dispute the factual basis of the review application. In particular, it was accepted that illicit tobacco products were discovered within the Premises during the inspection undertaken by authorised officers and subsequently seized.
10. The Panel found that illicit tobacco products were present within the Premises and that those products had been deliberately concealed behind the sales counter. The Panel considered the concealment of the products to be a significant aggravating feature and found that the location of the products strongly supported the inference that there was an awareness that the products should not have been openly visible within the Premises.
11. The Panel also noted that Kamagra products were discovered during the inspection. Whilst the review principally concerned illicit tobacco products, the presence of those items contributed to the Panel's concerns regarding management oversight, regulatory compliance and the operation of the Premises generally.
12. The Panel carefully considered the explanations advanced on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder. However, having considered the evidence as a whole, the Panel did not find those explanations persuasive and was not satisfied that they adequately explained either the presence of the illicit tobacco products or the circumstances in which they were concealed.
13. The Panel was particularly concerned that responsibility for the offending was repeatedly minimised or attributed elsewhere. The Premises Licence Holder sought to explain the circumstances by reference to the conduct of others and by suggesting that such products were commonly purchased by other licensed premises.
14. The Panel did not regard those explanations as credible explanations for the presence and concealment of the illicit tobacco products. The Panel considered that the explanations advanced demonstrated a failure to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the offending and a failure to accept full responsibility for the matters identified during the inspection.
15. The Panel concluded that meaningful acceptance of responsibility was an important indicator when assessing whether confidence in future compliance had been restored. In the Panel's view, the explanations advanced did not demonstrate sufficient recognition of the seriousness of the offending or adequate insight into the underlying causes of the failings that gave rise to the review.
16. The Panel therefore concluded that this was not a case involving an administrative oversight, an isolated mistake or a technical breach of licence conditions. Rather, the Panel was satisfied that serious criminal conduct had occurred within licensed premises.
17. The Panel also considered the supplementary evidence submitted on behalf of the Premises, including training records, refusals registers, incident logs, authorisation records and witness evidence.
18. The Panel accepted that some steps had been taken following the inspection and following commencement of the review proceedings. However, a substantial proportion of the records and documents relied upon had been created after the inspection and after the Premises Licence Holder became aware of the concerns raised by the Applicant.
19. The Panel therefore found that much of the supplementary material demonstrated remedial action taken in response to enforcement intervention rather than evidence of effective management systems operating within the Premises at the time of the offending.
20. Whilst the Panel accepted that some improvements had been implemented following the inspection, it was not satisfied that those measures demonstrated that adequate controls and management systems had been operating when the offending occurred. Nor was the Panel satisfied that the underlying failures and decision-making which resulted in the unlawful conduct had been adequately identified, acknowledged or addressed.
21. The Panel also considered the witness evidence submitted on behalf of the Premises. The Panel accepted that the evidence demonstrated some degree of subsequent improvement. However, the Panel attached limited weight to that evidence because the visit occurred after the inspection and after the Premises Licence Holder had become aware of the concerns raised by the Applicant. The Panel therefore concluded that the evidence provided limited assistance in determining the circumstances that existed at the time of the offending or whether the underlying causes of the offending had been adequately addressed.
22. The Panel further placed weight upon the evidence concerning the acquisition of the illicit stock. Having regard to the Premises Licence Holder's experience, personal involvement in acquiring the stock and the evidence concerning cost and mark-up, the Panel concluded that the purchase of the illicit products was financially motivated and represented a serious failure of management judgement and purchasing controls.
23. The Panel had particular regard to paragraphs 11.28 and 11.29 of the Secretary of State's Guidance. The Guidance identified the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and goods as conduct which should be treated particularly seriously because it undermined the licensing objectives and further provided that revocation should be seriously considered where such conduct was identified.
24. The Panel considered that the storage of illicit tobacco products within the Premises, together with the concealment of those products behind the sales counter, constituted precisely the type of serious criminal conduct contemplated by the Guidance.
25. The Panel also had regard to the principles identified in East Lindsey District Council v Abu Hanif [2016] EWHC 1265 (Admin). The Panel reminded itself that review proceedings were not dependent upon criminal convictions or criminal prosecutions and that the relevant issue was what step was appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Panel also considered the wider public interest in ensuring that licensed premises did not become involved in the storage or sale of illicit goods and the deterrent effect of regulatory action where serious criminal conduct was identified.
26. The Panel also considered the submissions made on behalf of the Premises in reliance upon paragraph 1.18 of the Secretary of State's Guidance. Whilst the Panel accepted that economic growth and business development are relevant considerations, it did not accept that paragraph 1.18 could properly be interpreted as requiring a licensing authority to overlook or minimise serious criminal conduct occurring within licensed premises in order to promote business growth or economic activity.
27. The Panel considered that the primary consideration remained the promotion of the licensing objectives and, in particular, the prevention of crime and disorder objective. The Panel therefore concluded that the seriousness of the conduct identified substantially outweighed the economic considerations relied upon by the Premises Licence Holder.
28. The Panel was further concerned that reliance upon paragraph 1.18, when viewed alongside the explanations advanced during the hearing, appeared to reflect a continuing attempt to minimise the seriousness of the offending by reference to commercial considerations. The Panel did not regard this as demonstrating a full appreciation of the seriousness of the conduct identified or a full acceptance of responsibility for it.
29. The Panel found that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective was directly and seriously engaged.
30. The Panel carefully considered all of the powers available under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003.
31. The Panel concluded that taking no action would be wholly inadequate having regard to the seriousness of the matters established and their impact upon the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.
32. The Panel considered whether additional conditions would adequately address the concerns identified. The Panel concluded that they would not.
33. The Panel found that the concerns identified did not arise from a lack of conditions, training requirements or record-keeping obligations. Rather, they arose from the conduct and decision-making which resulted in illicit tobacco products being present and concealed within the Premises.
34. The Panel also considered whether enhanced compliance measures, staff training requirements, external auditing requirements and regular inspections would adequately address the concerns identified. The Panel concluded that such measures would primarily address systems, procedures and record-keeping. However, the Panel's concerns did not arise simply from deficiencies in documentation, training records or licence conditions.
35. The Panel further considered whether removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor, whether alone or in combination with suspension and additional conditions, would adequately promote the licensing objectives.
36. The Panel concluded that the concerns identified extended beyond the actions of any individual officeholder and instead related more fundamentally to the management and operation of the business.
37. The Panel also concluded that suspension would merely postpone operation of the Premises and would not adequately address the underlying issues identified by the review.
38. The Panel was not satisfied that the underlying causes of the offending had been adequately addressed or would be permanently rectified.
39. The Panel therefore concluded that this was not a case in which the concerns identified could be adequately addressed through conditions, audits, suspension or a change of personnel.
40. The Panel was satisfied that the matters established during the review reflected more fundamental concerns regarding compliance, accountability and management decision-making.
41. The Panel concluded that the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective had been seriously undermined and that it could not be satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted going forward.
42. Having regard to the presence of illicit tobacco products within the Premises, the deliberate concealment of those products, the presence of Kamagra products, the absence of a credible explanation, the repeated attempts to minimise responsibility, the limited weight that could properly be attached to the remedial evidence and the Panel's conclusion that the underlying causes of the offending had not been adequately addressed, the Panel concluded that revocation was both necessary and proportionate.
43. For these reasons the Licensing Panel decided to REVOKE the Premises Licence. 

Right to Appeal

1. The Premises Licence Holder and any party to the review proceedings may appeal this decision to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of notification of this decision.