(a)

considered the report from the Director of Place;

(b)

heard from the applicant in respect of both applications that:

·          

he had put some posters up in the premises regarding the Challenge 25 procedure;

·          

he had started a refusal register;

·          

he had gone online and printed some information explaining the details of the Challenge 25 procedure;

·          

he believed he should be given a second chance with this application as he was training himself with information he had got from the internet;

·          

he was trying harder to obey the rules for this new property;

·          

he had made some approaches to officers but had not received any information or CDs to carry out training;

·          

he has been a victim of violence in his previous property for refusing to sell alcohol and tobacco to underage individuals;

(c)

heard from a representative of Devon and Cornwall Police that the applications would undermine the crime prevention objective as follows:

· 

that on the 30 April 2013 the applicant (who was at the time the Premises Licence Holder and DPS of a Corner Shop at 81 North Hill Plymouth) appeared before the Council’s Licensing Sub Committee for a review of their licence brought by the Police;

· 

at that meeting the Committee revoked the premises licence of the Corner Shop as a result of the repeated sale of alcohol to minors;

· 

the police considered that the applicant had a total disregard for operating within the licensing act provisions; he did not understand the requirements of managing a premises selling alcohol and did not take up several offers for help and advice in managing the premises and also in provision of suitable training;

· 

his previous premises was subject to three test fails;

· 

at the time of the last review of the Corner Shop premises, underage sales were still allowed during the review application period;

· 

the Corner Shop was left with such a poor reputation that a cool-off period was required until September as it was a magnet for people requiring underage sales under the old management;

· 

Mr Naci has been provided with information, both by the police and Plymouth City Council officers, as to where he could obtain accredited training which had not been taken up;

· 

at no time had Mr Naci demonstrated he was willing to properly engage with responsible authorities and officers of the council to resolve the issue of management of sales;

· 

the council trading standards officer had sent Mr Naci an email which contained a link to SWERCOTS training which he had not acknowledged to the officer and had made no effort to complete this online training;

· 

the police had no confidence that Mr Naci would work with them in the future to remedy the previous faults with underage sales and therefore requested that the application be refused;

(d)

the Committee had concerns that –

· 

Mr Naci couldn’t recall the conditions of his licence when asked by the police;

· 

the accuracy of Mr Naci’s information about the members of staff working at his premises;

· 

he had not completed the accredited SWERCOTS training and had not demonstrated sufficiently that he understood the need to keep records or how to store and record information about sales and training of staff;

· 

the police felt that he was unable to engage with the responsible authorities and council officers;

· 

Mr Naci had a lack of understanding of the identification types he was able to accept under Challenge 25;

· 

Mr Naci failed to demonstrate that he had sufficient knowledge of the licensing legislation and the conditions of his licence;

· 

the diary which was presented as the record of refusals was incomplete and did not contain sufficient information to identify who the person was and the nature of the refusal;

· 

Mr Naci has made little or no effort to prove that he has adequately satisfied the necessary/ requirements to be a premise licence holder and premise supervisor;

(e)

having taken into account all the representations made:

(1)

the Committee consider it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective that both applications should be rejected as they are satisfied by the Police evidence that the grant of the licence would be detrimental to the promotion of the crime prevention objective.