Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was none.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

There was none.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and declared that the Sub-Committee was sitting to consider an application for a premises licence in respect of Baltic Stores, 33 Old Sunway, King’s Lynn.

He introduced the Sub-Committee, the Borough Councillor offices and the legal Advisor and explained their roles.

The Applicant’s representative introduced himself and the Applicant.  The Applicant was accompanied by a Russian Translator and Ruslan Vasilevskij who was the leaseholder of the premises.

The Responsible Authorities present introduced themselves.

All parties confirmed that fifteen minutes would be sufficient to present their case.

At the request of the Chairman, the Legal Advisor outlined the procedure which would be followed at the Hearing.

The Environmental Health Manager presented her report and provided an overview of the application.  In presenting her report, the Environmental Health Manager referred to the following:

·         The application, which had been included with the Agenda.

·         The mandatory conditions, conditions consistent with the operating schedule and conditions which could be imposed by the Sub-Committee.

·         The four principles of the Licensing Act.

·         There had been representations from Norfolk Constabulary and Norfolk Trading Standards.

·         The Borough Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Section 182 Guidance.

The Chairman thanked the Environmental Health Manager for her report.  There were no questions.

The Applicant’s representative presented the Applicant’s case.  He explained that the application had been made on 1^st July 2016 for the premises at 33 Old Sunway, King’s Lynn.  The premises was a convenience store, which currently could not sell alcohol.  The representative explained that the current tenant of the premises to which the application related was Litexport Ltd which was a wholesale supplier of Eastern European foods.  It was denied that Jurij Kravcuk (the husband of the applicant) was the director of this company, as alleged by the Responsible Authorities, and the Applicant’s representative stated that he had documents available to prove it. The representative explained that the director of that company was Ruslan Vasilevskij, who appeared with the applicant at the hearing, and described himself as a friend of Mr Kravcuk.

The Sub-Committee heard that the applicant was a Holder of a personal licence and that she had experience with running similar premises in a different Local Authority area, where she had acted as a supervisor and trained staff.

The representative stated that the current tenant, Mr Vasilevskij, wished to divest himself of the tenancy of the premises and the applicant wished to take over, which was said to not be viable without a premises licence to sell alcohol. It was put forward that the applicant had the knowledge and experience and was familiar with licensing requirements and conditions of a premises licence.

The representative confirmed that the applicant and her husband had separated and denied that this application was designed to circumvent the rejection of the husband’s previous application. Representations were made that the applicant wished to set up a new life and move on from her previous relationship, whilst supporting her children.

The Applicant’s representative explained that the Responsible Authorities objections to the application related to the Applicants relationship with her former partner.  However, he stated that none of her partners previous history had anything to do with his client and she had not been asked to be interviewed, or the subject of a police investigation.

The representative submitted that the applicant had no previous bad character and the content of the objections by the Responsible Authorities could not be attributed to the applicant.

The Chairman thanked the Applicant’s representative and invited questions from all parties.

The Environmental Health Manager asked the Applicant to clarify the connection between her former partner and Litexport Ltd, as when he had applied for a licence previously he was listed as the Designated Premises Supervisor.  Mr Vasilevskij stated that Mr Kravcuk had never had a position within the company.

Brian Chattern from Norfolk Trading Standards referred to the previous application for a Licence for Baltic Store, which had originally been submitted in Mr Kravcuk’s name and then changed to Litexport Ltd and that Mr Kravcuk had been listed as Manager in previous documentation.

Mr Vasilevskij explained that Mr Kravcuk had helped him in starting up the business as he was a new comer and did not have a personal licence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(i) Norfolk Constabulary

The Police informed those present that some of the information they would like to share with the Committee was of a sensitive nature and related to ongoing Police investigations.  It was therefore proposed that the Hearing continued in closed session.

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Regulation 14(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearing Regulations) 2005, the press and public be excluded from the Hearing.

Norfolk Constabulary, as a Responsible Authority, presented their case. They objected to the granting of a licence on the grounds that the licensing objectives of crime and disorder would be undermined and the applicant was not a fit and proper person by virtue of her connections to Mr Kravcuk. Norfolk Constabulary expressed very grave concerns that the applicant was intrinsically linked to her husband. It was highlighted that this application pre-dated the applicant’s recent alleged separation from her husband and yet she continued with it. Norfolk Constabulary further highlighted that the applicant sought to run the premises currently leased by the friend of her husband. It was submitted that the applicant would be subject to economic and emotional pressures from her husband and he would continue to influence her.

Norfolk Constabulary confirmed that a number of interventions in relation to infringements of a premises licence had been made in relation to a premises in Lincolnshire that the applicant accepts she was involved with. The applicant confirmed that she trained staff at this premises. Questions were asked and answered of Norfolk Constabulary.

Police intelligence was shared with the Sub-Committee.

The Applicant’s representative requested a short recess so that he could discuss the Police intelligence with his client.

The Hearing adjourned at 11.00am

The Hearing reconvened at 11.15am.

Those present were reminded that the Hearing was still being held in closed session.

The Chairman invited questions from all parties to the Police.

The Police were asked questions relating to the intelligence they had shared at the Hearing.

(ii) Norfolk Trading Standards

Norfolk County Council Trading Standards, as a Responsible Authority, presented their case. They objected to the granting of a licence on the basis that they had concluded there was a continued association between the applicant and her husband and this would result in the licensing objective of crime and disorder being undermined.

The Sub-Committee were provided with details of interventions made by Norfolk Trading Standards, Lincolnshire Trading Standards and the HMRC.

The Chairman invited questions from all parties to Norfolk Trading Standards.

Brian Chattern responded to questions from all parties.

The Environmental Health Manager summed up her case.  She referred to the representations put forward at the Hearing and dispose of the applications using one of the methods as set out in her report.

The Sub-Committee was reminded that full reasons for their decision must be given as both the applicant and the other persons making representations had a right of appeal against that decision to the Magistrates’ Court.

The Applicant’s Representative summed up the Applicant’s case.  He reminded the Sub-Committee that each application should be considered on its own merits and stated that the objections raised by the Responsible Authorities related to the Committee’s refusal of an application from her former partner.

The representative explained that his client had no previous convictions and wanted to use this opportunity for a fresh start.  He stated that she would comply with the conditions of the licence, and had experience in previous shops she had been involved with.

He referred to the intelligence provided by the police and stated that it was just intelligence, and it had not resulted in any prosecutions by Norfolk Trading Standards and his client had not been implicated.

He stated that the business would only be viable if the Applicant was permitted to sell alcohol.

(i) Norfolk Constabulary

The representatives from the Police summed up their case.  The Police did not feel that the applicant would be removing herself from her past and the influence of her former partner by running the premises.  The Sub-Committee was also reminded that the application pre-dated her breakdown of relationship with her former partner.

The Police referred to some of the incidents which had been reported earlier on in the meeting.

Norfolk Trading Standards

Brian Chattern from Norfolk Trading Standards summed up his case.  He reiterated the comments made by the Police and did not feel that granting this application would assist in giving the applicant a fresh start and distance herself from her former partner.

Councillor Sandell asked questions of the Applicant relating to her former partner.

The Legal Advisor confirmed there were no outstanding matters.

The Sub-Committee retired to consider its decision in private, accompanied by the Democratic Services Officer and the Legal Advisor on specific points of law and procedure.

FINDINGS

The Sub-Committee had due regard to the report of the Environmental Health Manager, representations put forward in the agenda and the representations put forward at the Hearing by Norfolk Constabulary, Norfolk County Council Trading Standards and the Applicant about concerns relating to the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee only considered relevant representations and balanced the interests of the Applicant with the interests of the Responsible Authorities who made representations.

The Sub-Committee notes that the Licensing Authority’s policy and the Statutory Guidance requires the Sub-Committee to look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Responsible Authorities have very significant concerns about the applicant’s husband Mr Jurij Kravcuk that would directly undermine the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder. Mr Kravcuk was a prior applicant for a premises licence in relation to 33 Old Sunway. The Sub-Committee noted that the present application was made on 1 July 2016 after Mr Kravcuk’s application for a premises licence was rejected. The applicant stated when asked that she had separated from her husband two weeks ago, yet this had not compelled the applicant to withdraw this application. The Sub-Committee found this indicated a continued connection between the applicant and her husband and was not persuaded by the applicant’s assertions that she was trying to move away from him and start a new life. The Sub-Committee further noted that the applicant chose to bring along Ruslan Vasilevskij in support of her application, who confirmed he was a friend of the husband and was the owner of the company to which the applicant’s husband had very strong links. The Sub-Committee therefore accepts the Responsible Authorities’ concerns that the applicant would remain under economic and emotional pressures from her husband and Mr Vasilevksij which would significantly undermine the licencing objective of preventing of crime and disorder.

The Sub-Committee found that the applicant had previously been responsible for the training of staff at a similar premises in Lincolnshire, where a number of interventions had been made in relation to infringements of a premises licence, to include the sale of tobacco to underage children. The Sub-Committee is concerned that despite the applicant saying that she had received training pursuant to her personal licence, there were repeated incidents of infringements of a premises licence at a premises where she was responsible for training. In these circumstances the Sub-Committee finds that this directly relates to the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm.

DETERMINATION

The Sub-Committee refuses the application for a Premises Licence for Baltic Store, 33 Old Sunway, King’s Lynn as they feel that, on the basis of the information presented to it, the application would undermine all of the Licensing Objectives:

-          The prevention of crime and disorder

-          The protection of children from harm.