To consider a review of a premises licence in respect of the Commercial Hotel, 44 Commercial Road, Hereford, HR1 2BG.

The Regulatory Sub-Committee was convened in order to determine an application for a review of a premises licence in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. The Review had been applied for by West Mercia Police based on the licensing objectives regarding the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers and asked any interested parties to introduce themselves. He advised them of the hearing procedures and then asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr James Mooney, representing West Mercia Police who had applied for the review, addressed the sub-committee. He made a number of points, including:

• The premise fell within the cumulative impact zone as outlined in the Council’s Licensing Policy.
• On 12 November 2010 an assault took place a short distance away from the premise. The 3 youths who had been arrested for the offence were all 16 years old and had been drinking alcohol in the Commercial Hotel prior to the assault.
• The 16 year old youths had not been challenged by the door staff on entering the premise.
• All 3 of the youths had made a statement to confirm that they had been drinking in the premises prior to the incident.
• The applicant had offered two voluntary conditions in 2009 and had stated that a minor variation would follow, the variation was never submitted to the Licensing Authority.
• In December 2010, West Mercia Police were notified that the premise had failed in a test purchase operation when a 16 year old female was served alcohol.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, Mr Harrison, the premise licence holder, addressed the sub-committee. He raised a number of points, including:

• That he had 20 years experience in the Licensing Trade and managed 7 properties throughout the county, employing 105 members of staff.
• All staff were subject to a strict training regime with particular attention paid to under age sales.
• Staff challenge all patrons who appear to be under 21 years of age.
• The Commercial had been acquired in 2009 and was a local public house with a focus on weekend trade.
• SIA registered staff were employed.
• The events of the 13 November were disputed. The 3 youths had not been served alcohol in the premise although they had entered the premise before being refused alcohol.
• They had been in the bar for 15 minutes before leaving.
• One of the three youths involved in the incident returned to the premise where he was held by the door staff and handed to the police.
• In respect of the test purchase, the purchaser appeared to be over the age of 21 and was therefore not challenged.
• The girl used in the test purchase operation was served by 10 other premises.

In response to the issue regarding the test purchase operation, Mr Mooney confirmed that the test purchase operation had taken place in 10 premises but that only 2 premises had served the girl with alcohol, with 8 refusing to serve.

He also added that the fixed penalty for a test purchase could have been challenged if there were concerns but in this case the penalty had not been challenged.

All parties were given the opportunity to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make their decision, the Council’s Legal Advisor and the Democratic Services Officer also retired to assist them with legal and procedural matters.

RESOLVED

That the premise licence in respect of The Commercial, 44 Commercial Road, Hereford, HR1 2BG, be amended as detailed in the attached decision notice.