Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for part of the meeting because of the disclosure to them of exempt information as identified in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Apologies for absence were received from R. Wellington (Environmental Health Officer).
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for part of the meeting because of the disclosure to them of exempt information as identified in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Committee were advised that there was CCTV footage that would be played to the Committee and advised at that point the live streaming would be paused and the meeting would go into exempt session. Members considered the public interest test certificate from the Proper Officer and concluded that on balance the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and it was. RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for part of the meeting because of the disclosure to them of exempt information as identified in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application submitted by Trading Standards for a Review of the Premises Licence under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the Village Stores Nelson, 57 High Street, Nelson. The Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor at the time being Mr Nirojan Thavarasa. It was highlighted that the review was brought by Trading Standards due to a complaint which raised concerns about the promotion of the protection of children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives. Members heard how following the application for a review, representations had been received from the following Responsible Authorities who all supported the need for the review, the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Licensing Authority, Child Protection, Environmental Health, and Gwent Police. Members were advised that there would be CCTV footage shown to the Committee and at that point the meeting would go into exempt session for approximately 5 minutes. The Committee were advised that Mr Thavarasa became the Premises Licence Holder on 24th October 2024 and the premises licence permits the sale of alcohol on an off sales basis only from Monday to Saturday, 8am until 23:00 and on a Sunday, 10am until 23:00. Members were informed that Mr Thavarasa had removed himself as the Designated Premises Supervisor for various stores on the 9th July 2026. Attention was drawn to the local policy considerations as set out within the Licensing Officers report and to the way in which the Sub Committee should deal with the application. The Sub Committee were referred to the recommendations set out in the report, which considered the position of the Responsible Authorities in relation to the Applicant’s ability to promote the Licensing Objectives. Members were advised that the Applicant had been appraised of the comments of the Responsible Authorities and responses to those comments were included within the report. The Committee advised that there were no questions at this time and the Chair invited representations from the Applicant (Trading Standards as Responsible Authority). The Trading Standards Officer outlined the circumstances of the underage sale and raised concerns about the management and operation of the premises. The officer requested that the live streaming be paused to allow the Committee to view the CCTV footage. The Live streaming was paused at this point and the committee meeting entered exempt session. Following the CCTV footage, the live-streaming and recording resumed, and the officer referred Members to the incident as shown on the CCTV footage which clearly demonstrated the young age of the purchaser. Members were informed that Trading Standards had also obtained a witness statement from the child’s parent confirming the child’s age and identity. The parent had stated that they went to the premises to challenge the sale and spoke to the staff member who made the sale and was told that he did not know the legal age for alcohol sales. Trading Standards considered the incident to be a serious failure of the licensing objectives of protecting children from harm and raised concerns regarding the prevention of crime and disorder objective. Members were informed that compliance visits undertaken on 24th June 2025 found that the premises licence summary was not displayed, no written authority to sell alcohol on behalf of the DPS was available, no challenge 25 signage was displayed, training records and refusal logs could not be produced, staff could not access CCTV footage and was told that the DPS was reportedly in Sri Lanka at the time. Further visits on 27th June and 9th July identified similar concerns, including the continued inability to provide training records or refusal logs, inability to access CCTV and uncertainty regarding management arrangements. Officers also noted that none of the staff encountered held a personal licence. It was during the visit on the 9th July officers met the area manager who was also the CCTV installer. The CCTV footage was viewed by officers, and the staff member was identified. The Trading Standards Officer advised that the Premises Licence Holder had later provided training records, but officers remained unconvinced that adequate controls were in place. Concerns were raised that the employee responsible for the sale had not only worked approximately six shifts before being left in sole charge of the premises. Officers also questioned the authenticity of some records due to apparent alterations to dates, although these concerns could not be proven. It was highlighted that the Premises Licence Holder’s lack of engagement during the investigation, including failure to respond to interview invitations, failure to return calls and repeated delays to proposed interview dates, officers considered that these actions frustrated the criminal investigation. The officer concluded that the matter demonstrated wider failings in management, staff supervision, training, record keeping, compliance systems and cooperation with regulatory authorities. Trading Standards sought suspension of the licence together with a comprehensive package of additional licence conditions. Members were advised that revocation was also an option available for Members consideration, where licensing objectives had been seriously undermined. The Legal Adviser queried why Trading Standards sought suspension as a punitive measure and explained that the sub-Committee’s role was to impose measures that promote the licensing Objectives and asked the officer to expand their submission as to why a suspension would assist in the promotion of the two licensing objectives referred to. The officer confirmed that a temporary suspension would provide an opportunity for the Premises Licence Holder to have time for a meaningful improvements to be put in place and review and improve management practices, strengthen staff training and record keeping arrangements, and implement measures designed to promote and demonstrate commitment to the licensing objectives. The Legal Adviser queried whether the proposed licence conditions had been discussed with the Premises Licence Holder. The officer confirmed that the conditions were suggestions put forward by Trading Standards and that meaningful discussions had been prevented due to difficulties engaging with the Premises Licence Holder during the investigation. The Legal Adviser asked if the level of non-engagement experienced was unusual. The officer advised that levels of engagement varied, but in significant underage sales investigations Trading Standards would generally expect cooperation due to seriousness of the matter and stated that engagement in this case had been particularly difficult. The Chair asked who had supplied the training records and who had alleged that they had been altered. The officer confirmed that the records were supplied by the Premises Licence Holder at the eleventh hour and whilst they provided a due diligence for the purpose of the criminal investigation, the investigating officer continued to have concerns about their reliability because of apparent alterations to dates within the documents, but this could not be confirmed. A Member asked whether Challenge and logbooks were conditions attached to the premises licence. Officers explained that Challenge 25 was not necessarily an existing condition of the licence, but proof of age policy was a mandatory licensing requirement applicable to all licensed premises, and as the DPS Mr Thaavarasa would be aware of that. The Member referred to the photograph of the shop displaying a poster for red bull and queried whether there were any restrictions. The officer confirmed that there are no restrictions on energy drinks currently. The Chair queried the responsibilities of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and whether alcohol sales, could have been unauthorised during periods when the DPS was absent. The Trading Standards Officer confirmed that the DPS was the individual who was responsible for the day-to-day control of alcohol sales and authorisation of licensed activities there was a mechanism for authorising another person, but officers had no evidence that this arrangement existed. The Chair questioned why the matter had taken over a year to reach the hearing today and asked whether this was due to the lack of engagement from the Premises Licence Holder. The officer confirmed that Trading Standards would have preferred to resolve the matter much earlier, but difficulties in communication and engagement with the Premises Licence Holder contributed significantly to delays. There were no further questions, and the Chair invited the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board to present their representations. The officers introduced themselves and referenced their representations within the report. It was stated that the licensing objective of protecting children from harm had been undermined. It was highlighted that there were concerns regarding the sale of alcohol to an 11-year-old child, concerns were expressed in relation to the apparent absence of an effective age verification system, and the inability of staff to locate refusal logs and referenced the proximity of the premises to local schools. It was explained to the Committee about the serious risks’ alcohol posed to children and young people and outlined wider alcohol related health concerns within the county borough. The Chair asked whether the risks differed according to the age of the child. The officer confirmed that evidence demonstrated that the younger a child is when they begin consuming alcohol, the greater the risk of immediate and longer-term harms, and therefore the sale of alcohol to an 11-year-old was particularly concerning. There were no further questions, and the Chair invited the Licensing Authority in its role as Responsible Authority to submit their representations. The Licensing Officer referred to their representations within the report and advised that the Licensing Authority supported the review application and stated that the Premises Licence Holder’s lack of engagement demonstrated a failure to appreciate the responsibilities attached to holding a premises licence, which showed a disregard of those responsibilities. The officer confirmed that they lacked confidence in the Premises Licence Holder and supported the imposition of additional conditions and a period of suspension to allow improvements to be demonstrated by the Premises Licence Holder, this process would provide a more robust and enforceable licence. The Chair sought clarification on what sort of period of suspension would be appropriate. The officer advised that legislation permits suspension for up to 3 months, but the appropriate period would be for Members to determine based upon the evidence and the time required for the Premises Licence Holder to implement and demonstrate compliance. The Member asked how Members could be reassured that training provided by the Premises Licence Holder would be sufficient as concerns already existed regarding training records. Officers suggested external training could be considered and confirmed that failure to comply with additional conditions that could trigger a further review. The Chair sought confirmation from the Premises Licence Holder that he would implement training from external providers. The Premises Licence Holder confirmed that he would agree to using external training. There were no further questions, and the Chair invited Child Protection in its role as Responsible Authority to submit their representations. The Child Protection Officer referred to their representations on page 71 of the bundle. It was confirmed that Child protection fully supported the review application and considered the sale of alcohol to an 11-year-old child to be a serious safeguarding concern and highlighted concerns regarding the absence of training records., Challenge 25 materials and CCTV access, all of which indicated inadequate protection measures. The officer supported proportionate action to safeguard children and young people. There were no questions, and the Chair invited Environmental Health (Health and Safety) in its role as Responsible Authority to submit their representations. The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that they fully supported the conditions proposed by Trading Standards and Gwent Police and the information provided from the Health Board in regard to health effects on children and considered them important in securing future compliance with the licensing objectives. There were no questions, and the Chair invited Gwent Police in its role as Responsible Authority to submit their representations. The representative from Gwent Police addressed the Sub Committee outlining their representations included at appendix 12 within the report and confirmed that Gwent Police fully supported the review application. It was confirmed that CCTV footage was compelling evidence and expressed concerns regarding the Premise Licence Holder’s failure to cooperate with the responsible authorities. The officer supported the suspension and enhanced licence conditions, which would enable the Premises Licence Holder to have a period for staff training and conditions implementation could take place. It was confirmed that Gwent Police had no confidence that the Premises Licence Holder had promoted the licensing objectives, and if left in this position without due course and action, they would continue to undermine those licence conditions. One Member asked if the employee that sold the alcohol to the 11-year-old child could face prosecution. The officer confirmed that the individual could be prosecuted. The Trading Standards Officer explained that selling alcohol to a child was a criminal offence and the liability can extend to both the seller and Premises Licence Holder to be prosecuted. However, the seller could not be located and there were indications that the seller may no longer be in the UK. The Premises Licence Holder had successfully relied upon a due diligence defence, bringing the criminal investigation to an end. The Chair thanked the officer and asked if Licensing could provide an update on the layout of the premises and sought confirmation as to whether a variation application had been received. The Licensing Manager confirmed that no application had been received. The Chair invited the Premises Licence Holder or Counsel present to make their representations. Counsel introduced themselves and advised that they had been briefed by the Premises Licence Holder and was present to speak today on their behalf. Counsel requested consent to present to the committee new documents provided that morning by the Premises Licence Holder, the evidence related to training records, refusal logs and photographs showing signage and procedures already implement at the store. The Legal Adviser asked why had the documentation been handed in the day of the meeting and not provided prior to the hearing. Counsel confirmed that this was the first time they had met with the Premises Licence Holder and had not been made aware until that morning that the documentation would be provided on the day. No explanation was provided from the Premises Licence Holder as to why the documents had not been provided sooner. The Chair sought confirmation from the Responsibilities Authorities and officers that they were all agreeable to accept the evidence. All parties agreed to accept the additional evidence and arrangements were made for copies to be circulated to everyone. Counsel was asked if they wished to take a break, but they were happy to continue. Counsel stated that the Premises Licence Holder accepted the underage sale that had occurred and acknowledged the seriousness of the incident and concerns regarding the management of the store. It was confirmed that the employee responsible for the sale had been dismissed and the Premises Licence Holder had informed them that this person would not be employed by them again. It was stated that the Premises Licence Holder did not seek to minimise the concerns raised and Counsel advised that the Premises Licence Holder accepted all proposed licence conditions and accepted that a period of suspension would be appropriate and suggested a short suspension between 14 and 28 days to be appropriate. Changes had been implemented to demonstrate that the Licence Holder’s acceptance that the premises required a different management structure going forward and their willingness to make changes to promote the licensing objectives. Counsel confirmed that a new DPS had been appointed for this premises and Nirosh Ltd for an additional premises within the area, additional signage had been installed, staff training had been delivered, refusal logs were now being maintained, till prompts had been introduced for age-restricted products, the Premises Licence Holder accepted that previous engagement with authorities had been inadequate and there had been communication difficulties which arose whilst the they were abroad caring for their son. Following conversations with the Premises Licence Holder, Counsel confirmed in response to concerns about the layout that a variation application relating to alterations to the premises was being prepared but was unable to confirm when this would be submitted. The Licensing Manager informed the committee that a full variation application would be required. The Chair queried why the Premises Licence Holder had personally conducted training despite concerns regarding management failings. Counsel advised that the content and quality of the training had been improved and strengthened following the incident. It was stated that at the time of the incident there had been age verification in place, however the employee did not follow on what he had been trained to do. It was acknowledged that this was a major error and accepted and agreed with the concerns raised by all parties. the employees’ contract was terminated, and the Licence Holder had confirmed that the individual would not be employed by them again in the future and was happy for this to be an additional condition. Counsel confirmed that with the improvements and acceptance of all conditions the premises licence would be in “safe hands” with the Licence Holder. The Trading Standards Officer also raised concern about the Premises Licence Holder providing training and given the lateness of the delivery of the documents which compounds and confirms the concerns about the management of the premises, referring to the newly submitted training records, which identified two employees had received training did not provide confidence and the refusals logs appeared to be completed by one employee. The officer questioned the authenticity of the refusal logs that had not been available during previous inspections. The officer explained that staff at the premises had repeatedly stated logs existed but had not been able to produce them at the time of inspections. It was explained that the purpose of a refusal log was for it to be readily available at the point of sale. The Trading Standards Officer sought clarification on whether all staff would receive training or was it that the underage sales would only be monitored and recorded by one member of staff when they were present, this posed a number of issues and also highlighted concerns by officers regarding the possible falsified documents within the criminal investigation. Counsel apologised and appreciated the comments on the lateness of the documents being handed in, it was stated by Counsel that all staff would be trained and was unable to provide an explanation for why only one member of staff had completed the refusal logs. The Chair asked the Premise Licence Holder why the refusal logs were not provided when staff were asked for them by Officers on the inspections, it was stated that they did not know why they were not provided. The Chair challenged Counsel’s suggestions that the licence would be in safe hands given the prolonged failure to engage with Trading Standards and the seriousness of the underage sale. Counsel acknowledged that “safe hands” was not the best phrase and clarified that they had intended to convey that the new management arrangements and conditions would produce a safer operating environment. The Chair sought the name of the new DPS and queried whether the Premises Licence Holder could become the DPS again in the future. The Licensing Manager confirmed that they had the details for the new DPS and that it was possible that a future application could be submitted to change the DPS back to the Licence Holder, although it would be subject to the normal statutory process and Gwent Police would have the opportunity to object. The Licensing Manager sought clarification from the Licence Holder on how many staff were employed at the premises and what role Nirosh Ltd had in connection with the premises as the licence in Mr Thavarasa’s own name and not the limited company name. Counsel clarified this with the Premises Licence Holder, and it was confirmed that there were 2 members of staff at the premises and that the Premises Licence Holder was the owner of Nirosh Ltd but acknowledged that the licence was in his personal name. The Legal Adviser queried with Counsel as to the relevance of the proposed additional condition put forward by the Premises Licence Holder in relation to not employing the member of staff again in the future and queried how this would promote the licensing objectives. Following consultation with the Premises Licence Holder, Counsel confirmed that it was really in relation to the training, as that staff member had received training but failed to follow it. It was state that it reflected on his personal licence as the staff member did not hold a personal licence. It had been discussed with the Premises Licence Holders’ solicitors, but Counsel only became aware of this proposed condition that morning. The Legal Adviser commented that as the Premises Licence Holder has control and the right to choose who to employ staff at any time to work at the premises. On reflection Counsel agreed that they did not see that this condition had a place or purpose and commented that it was the Premises Licence Holder seeking to show that they were trying to abide by conditions. Discussions took place concerning CCTV and whether staff would be trained on the CCTV. Trading Standards confirmed that it would be a condition that all staff were to be trained on how to access the CCTV in the event of anything happening in the store and the reliance on that CCTV as evidence. It was emphasised that the CCTV was there to protect both the staff in the store and users of the store. The Legal Adviser referred to the CCTV conditions on pages 81 and 82 stated that the DPS would ensure that staff were trained and would need to produce the evidence if requested but noted that the Premises Licence Holder was no longer the DPS. The Chair questioned again why the recommendation was to suspend the licence given the lack of confidence and concerns raised, as opposed to revoking it. The Trading Standards Officer advised that it was more a case of airing on the side of caution, but the option to revoke was there for consideration too along with other suggested sanctions. The officer stated that if the Premises Licence Holder worked with the authorities, it would have the potential for this licence to work successfully, it was commented that mistakes were made and this could be put right but only with engagement and this had not been forthcoming. The Licensing Manager clarified for the Committee that the changes to the layout of the premises were in March 2026 and that further information had come into their possession which would mean that this would be a full variation to the licence required. The Chair advised there were no further questions all parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. Licensing - In closing the Licensing Manager asked Members to consider all the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting, and all Licensing guidance when making their decision. The Sub Committee were reminded of the need to consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives and whether the applicant would be able to meet the same. In Closing all Responsible Authorities including the Applicant, Trading Standards maintained their support for suspension and the imposition of robust additional conditions. Trading Standards continued to express concerns regarding the management failings, lack of engagement, training records, refusal logs and the late production of evidence and the reliability of documentation and management practices. Gwent Police suggested that future staff training should be delivered externally rather than by the Licence Holder. Counsel reiterated on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder their acceptance of the proposed conditions, accepted shortcomings in management and cooperation, and requested a shorter suspension period while improvements were implemented. The Chair thanked all parties for their submissions and handed over to the Legal Adviser to explain the procedure. The Legal Adviser informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed in writing of the decision in the next 5 working days. The Sub Committee retired at 11:56 am to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. This is the decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee (“Sub-Committee”) regarding the hearing held on 5th August 2026 in respect of the Determination of Premises Licence Review Application. The Sub-Committee, for the reasons set out below, have determined to take the following steps pursuant to section 52(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 to adequately promote the relevant licensing objectives (namely the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm): 1. Vary the conditions of the existing premises licence by the addition of the conditions proposed in Appendix 13 of the Licensing Manager’s report and as reproduced in the attached schedule to this decision. 2. To add a further condition of licence (being the italicised condition within the attached schedule) that “All existing employees of the business operated from the premises receive training from third party training regulated by organisations like BIIAB, Highfield (HABC), and LASER or equivalent accredited external training provider in regard to obligations arising from the Licensing Act 2003 within 2 calendar months of this condition becoming binding”. 3. To suspend the premises licence for a period of 2 calendar months, commencing on the date calculated in accordance with section 52(11) of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”). The review was initiated by Trading Standards following the off-sale of alcohol to an 11-year-old boy from the premises. This took place on 20 June 2025, and the Licence Holder accepted that this had taken place. The Licence Holder submitted that the illegal sale took place by an employee who had not long been working in the store and was contrary to the training he had provided regarding alcohol sales prior to his employment commencing. Almost immediately on being made aware of the incident the Licence Holder terminated the employment of the relevant employee. Trading Standards, amongst other Responsible Authorities, did not entirely accept that the above sale was simply a case of an employee not following training or direction from the Licence Holder. Its view was that there appeared to be several management shortfalls, including an apparent absence of the excepted level of oversight and day to day management of the licensable activity by the designated premises supervisor (“DPS”) – who at the relevant time was the Licence Holder himself. There appeared to be a lack of corroborating evidence that clearly demonstrated that there was compliance with the mandatory licensing condition regarding the adoption and operation of an age verification policy operating within the premises. There were concerns as to the veracity of evidence regarding training logs for staff and refusal logs. The review was initiated on or around 15 June 2026, and within such application a series of desired additional conditions were sought for the Sub-Committee’s consideration under section 52(4)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”). These were reproduced at Appendix 13 and were readily agreed by the Licence Holder during the interim period between the review application and hearing. All responding Responsible Authorities supported the addition of the proposed licensing conditions in Appendix 13. In further response to the review application, the Licence Holder applied on or around 9 July 2026 to replace himself as the DPS for the premises. There was also documentary evidence provided at the hearing (with the consent of all parties) of compliance with some of the suggested licensing condition within Appendix 13 (such as more robust measures being in place for age verification such as a till prompt system, internal training, and prominent signage). At the hearing, via his counsel, the Licence Holder accepted the gravity of the breach and to some extent accepted that there were some shortcomings in the management of the licensable activity upon the premises, but the recent steps taken by the Licence Holder was evidence that the Licensing Authority could have full confidence that the incident would not be repeated. In addition to the further licencing conditions, the Licence Holder accepted that a short period of suspension of the premises licence of between 14-28 days was proportionate to promote the relevant licencing objectives. The relevant licensing objectives being the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee considered the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (February 2026) (“the Guidance”) and the Licensing Authority’s policy. Particular regard was given to chapter 11 of the Guidance, and the Sub-Committee were cognisant that the steps it ultimately determined pursuant to section 52(4) of the Act could not be punitive and needed to be proportionate towards the aim of promoting the relevant licensing objectives. Whilst the Sub-Committee continue to have reservations as to the Licence Holder’s ability to fully comply with the conditions of licence and his obligations under the Act – it was sufficiently clear to it that the Licence Holder had made sufficient alterations (such as removing himself as DPS from not only this Premises but also from another premises in the locality) and there being evidence of only one illegal sale – the revocation of the licence would be disproportionate. The Sub-Committee considered that the additional conditions were proportionate. It provided a more detailed expansion/structure of what is generally required to satisfy the obligation to adopt an age verification policy, given the doubts over the Licence Holder’s previous ability to do so without such structured breakdown. This in turn would promote each of the two relevant licensing objectives by making it far less likely an underage alcohol sale would reoccur. It would ensure that the same problems obtaining CCTV footage as Trading Standards had encountered would be unlikely to be repeated. Notwithstanding the provision of documentary evidence of training provided by the Licence Holder – the Sub-Committee did not find this persuasive. The Sub-Committee reached the view that during the hearing, when counsel was without instructions on aspects arising, the Licence Holder struggled to coherently answer straight forward queries regarding fundamental aspects of the licencing regime he is involved with on a day-to-day basis across several years. For instance, the Licence Holder could not explain why he had expanded the licensable activity beyond the parameters of the licensing plan for the premises in or around March 2026, nor could he coherently explain why he had not as yet made an application to vary the premises licence in this regard, other than the application is being prepared by his solicitors. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee gave significant weight to the Licence Holder’s behaviour, which can only be described as evasive, towards Trading Standards in its subsequent enquiries stemming from the 20 June 2025. The Licence Holder had only taken several significant steps to address the concerns raised by Trading Standard subsequent to the Review Application being made, which were likely to have been a subject of advice from his legal advisor. The Licence Holder himself accepted, via his counsel, that his engagement and behaviour in the months subsequent to 20 June 2025 were not of the standard that was required. In short, the Sub-Committee has significant reservations that the Licence Holder can adequately train his existing staff from his own knowledge. For instance, it would be unsatisfactory for him to train staff on the role and responsibilities a DPS has, when he himself accepts that he may not have performed such role with adequate attention. The Sub-Committee’s decision to add the italicised condition in the Schedule regarding accredited external training for existing staff is aimed at ensuring that there will be, in the very near future, an adequate standard of training for those who are involved in the day-to-day operation of the licensable activity. This will allow for an accountable baseline of knowledge and awareness that should provide sufficient assurance to the Licencing Authority, and the responding Responsible Authorities, that the relevant licensing objective would be adequately promoted going forward. As the prevention of crime and disorder was a relevant licensing objective in the review, the Sub-Committee gave particular regard to paragraphs 11.26-11.28 of the Guidance. In determining that a 2-calendar month suspension of the licence should apply the Sub-Committee took into account the obligation for the Licence Holder to source and arrange the externally provided training, which was likely to take a period of weeks to take place. The Sub-Committee took into account that the addition of the further conditions of licence will need time to be arranged and implemented by the Licence Holder. The Sub-Committee were cognisant of the impact such suspension period would inevitably have on the Licence Holder. This is not intended to be punitive but rather a reflection that the Sub-Committee is under a duty is to promote the licensing objectives in the interests of the wider community and not the interests of the individual licence holder. The suspension should also have the ancillary effect of deterring the criminal activity (illegal purchase of alcohol by minors) for taking place again. The above was concordant with the Licensing Authority’s policy that considers the underage sales of alcohol to minors to be a serious matter. The Licence Holder has 21 days from notification of the Sub-Committee’s decision in which to file an appeal with Gwent Magistrates.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.