To review the licensed Premises.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report which asked Members to consider a review of a Premises Licence granted under the Licensing Act 2003 made by Chief Inspector Vanessa Foster on behalf of Kent Police. He reminded Members that the review had been requested for failing to promote the following licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; the protection of public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.

The Licensing Officer referred to the review application as set out at Appendix II of the report. He explained that as part of the review, the Applicant requested that the Sub-Committee considered revoking the premises license.

The Licensing Officer reported that during the 28-day consultation a representation was received from Kent County Council (KCC) Trading Standards, set out at Appendix IV of the report. 

The Licensing Officer said Kent Police Licensing provided supporting documents, CCTV files which had been circulated to the Sub-Committee and the Premises License Holder prior to the hearing. The evidence related to incidents that were part of ongoing Police investigations. These documents were marked as confidential and were exempt from public disclosure by reason that they contained information under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, there was information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions of the Licensing Officer. There were no questions.

The Chair asked Kent Police to present their statement.

The Kent Police Licensing Officer outlined their reasons for calling for the review of the premises licence, in particular due to serious and persistent concerns regarding the sale of age-restricted products to children and repeated breaches of licence conditions.

The Kent Police Licensing Officer presented the details of visits, addressed the Sub-Committee and said the following:

·         A significant number of vape sales were made to persons under the age of 18 including children in school uniform aged between 11 and 17 years;

·         additional breaches included failure to produce CCTV, failure to ensure training records were retained, and the sale of alcohol without appropriate age verification;

·         the Premises Licence Holder had not had the shops licence on display, there were no Challenge 25 signs displayed, and he had not had refusal registers;

·         CCTV evidence showed that the Premises Licence Holder could clearly be seen accepting ID from a 15 year old child on the child’s phone despite this being contrary to a condition on their licence;

·         both the Premises Licence Holder and his wife then encouraged proxy sales by asking that child to purchase vapes for other children, and suggesting the children asked someone to purchase vapes for them which showed a complete disregard for the law relating to underage sales, the licensing objectives and the potential for harm to those children caused by vaping; and

·         CCTV had been seized by the Police following a failure to provide the CCTV in a timely manner on request by the Police.

The Chair invited Members of the panel and all parties to ask questions to Kent Police.

The Chair invited KCC Trading Standards to present their representation.

The KCC Trading Standards delegates read out their representation as set out at Appendix IV of the report. They reported on the Premises history of complaints and visits, in particular there were a number of Challenge 25 test purchases which the store had passed and failed; the premises had also passed a test purchase; the CCTV footage showed incidents of vape or vape liquid sales to young people in school uniform without ID checks being carried out.

The KCC Trading Standards representative outlined that the Premises Licence Holder had not been upholding the licencing objectives and failing in the management of Challenge 25 Policy, staff training and the refusal register. There had only been 7 refusals made from 21/04/2025 to 23/04/2026.

The Chair invited Members of the panel to ask  the KCC Trading Standards representative questions.

The Chair invited the Premises Licence Holder and their representative to put forward their case.

The Legal Representative for the Premises Licence Holder addressed the Sub-Committee and said that the Guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 did not specifically refer to vapes.

The Licensing Consultant of the Premises Licence Holder explained that there had been a joint visit by Kent Police and KCC Trading Standards, and the refusal register had been presented and signed, and staff training records had been presented and there were up to date.

The Chair invited Members of the panel and officers to ask the  Premises Licence Holder’s representative questions.

In response, the Premises Licence Holder accepted responsibility for a significant number of vape sales to persons under the age of 18 including children in school uniform aged between 11 and 17 years, and apologised for them.

The Premises Licence Holder confirmed that CCTV was working now and if there was a request they would be able to provide access to them.

The Chair invited final statements and closing words. 

Members of the Sub-Committee and the Senior Lawyer returned to the meeting at 13:56 and the decision was announced.

The decision notice is attached to the online version of these minutes.

Resolved:

(1)       That the premises licence be revoked, pursuant to Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003.