The Sub-Committee considered an application for a Premises
Licence in respect of Groszek European Market, 36 Lowesmoor, Worcester WR1 2SG.
At the start of the meeting, the Chair made the following
“Presentations to the Sub-Committee are not given
under oath. However, I would like to remind all parties that the
highest standards are expected and any deviation from these high
standards could possibly influence any decision of the
All parties at the hearing were introduced. The applicant,
confirmed she was aware of her right to have legal representation
at the meeting but had chosen not to. She was represented by a
Licensing Consultant, June Clarke. Ms
Kwiatek confirmed she was satisfied
with the proposed procedure.
The Senior Practitioner – Licensing presented the
report on behalf of Worcestershire Regulatory Services. The Senior
Practitioner – Licensing explained that WRS received an
application for a premises licence on
21 March 2022 from Ms Kwiatek, in respect of Groszek European Market. The applicant applied for
the following licensable activities:
Sale of Alcohol (Off sales only)
MsKwiatek was the
designated premises supervisor identified in the
Responsible authorities had been
consulted regarding the application. No objections were received.
Two representations were received from other persons. The
representations related to concerns around crime and disorder and
litter as a public nuisance.
In summary, the Senior Practitioner
– Licensing explained that in
considering the application, the
Sub-Committee should have regard to the
Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy under the Licensing Act 2003. The
Sub-Committee is obliged to determine the
application with a view to the
promotion of the licensing objectives
prevention of crime and disorder;
prevention of public nuisance;
protection of children from harm.
All parties were offered the opportunity to ask questions
of the Senior Practitioner – Licensing.
The applicant’s Licensing Consultant explained that
measures to address issues raised by the two objectors would be
undertaken, if the licence was granted.
This included CCTV monitoring and compliance registers, which could
be shared with authorities where necessary. The ‘Challenge
25’ initiative would be adopted with staff asking to see
customers’ ID when in doubt, before allowing them to purchase
In response to specific comments from the objectors,
Ms Clarke commented that the owner of
the premises could not be held responsible if customers chose to
abuse alcohol. She further explained that local shops such as
Ms Kwaitek’s served as ‘top up’
shops rather than sources of regular purchasing since their offer
was more limited and more expensive than larger local
It was further noted that the responsible authorities,
including Police, contacted during the consultation period had
raised no concerns regarding anti-social behaviour or public
Sub-Committee members asked further questions regarding
staff training and sought clarification about staff intervention in
the event of anti-social behaviour taking place outside the
premises. Ms Clarke confirmed this
would be monitored from inside the premises by CCTV and reported to
the relevant authority where appropriate.
Sub-Committee members enquired whether staff would sign the
log books on beginning work for the day. Ms Clarke clarified that this was not the case and
that the books were for logging specific incidents, e.g. refusal to
serve a customer.
Ms Clarke advised the Sub-Committee that if the
licence was granted, one-off staff
training would be provided, with self-guided learning to follow.
Support would be available remotely, thereafter. Ms Clarke confirmed there were no employees at the
premises under the age of 18.
Ms Clarke was given the opportunity to provide a
final statement. She reiterated the fact that none of the
responsible authorities had raised any objections to the
licence application, and that she
believed the application addressed all four of the Licensing
Authority’s licensing objectives.
The Legal Advisor asked for clarification on the
Sub-Committee Members’ behalf from the Senior Practitioner
– Licensing, with the Chair’s permission, regarding
whether any adverse feedback had been received during the 23 day
period alcohol had been sold under a Temporary Event Notice (TEN).
Further clarification was also sought on the issue of litter, which
had been raised by one of the objectors.
The Senior Practitioner – Licensing confirmed no
adverse feedback had been received regarding alcohol sales under
the TEN, and further advised that a public litter bin was available
in close proximity to the premises.
The Senior Practitioner – Licensing then summarized
the options open to Sub-Committee members in arriving at their
(a) Grant the application as
(b) Modify the conditions of
the licence, by altering or omitting or adding to them.
(c) Reject the application in
whole or in part.
In considering the decision, the following legal advice was
That the Licensing Objectives must be the paramount
That the Sub-Committee may only have regard to the
representations which promote the four licensing
In considering the objections, the Sub-Committee
should have regard to only matters that related to the licensing
The Sub-Committee must consider only those matters
directly relevant to the premises under consideration and only
those matters that fall under the licensing committee’s
The Sub-Committee must only impose additional
conditions if they considered that they are reasonable and
All parties with the exception of the Members of the
Sub-Committee and representatives of Legal and Democratic Services
then withdrew to enable to the Sub-Committee to consider its
In reaching a decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to the
following points in their deliberation:
licensing objectives set out on the Licensing Act 2003.
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
guidance issued under section 182 of the Act.
Report presented by the Senior Technical Officer, Licensing,
Worcestershire Regulatory Services.
application and oral representations made at the Hearing by the
applicant’s agent Ms June Clarke and the applicant Ms
two written representations submitted by residents
All parties were recalled and the Chair announced the
decision of the Sub-Committee.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee has
decided to grant a licence as applied
The reasons for the
Sub-Committee’s decision were as follows:
The Sub-Committee was advised that the premises has
operated as a food store for two months and has recently sold
alcohol for 23 days under a Temporary Event Notice. The Senior
Licensing Officer confirmed that there had not been any concerns
raised during the period of the Temporary Event Notice.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations made by
and on behalf of the applicant with regards to the operation of the
business and considered that the conditions included in the
Operating Schedule demonstrated the applicant’s understanding
of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee gave weight to the
steps taken by the applicant who had appointed the Licensing
Consultant, Ms Clarke, to prepare bespoke documents for recording
incidents, refused sales and training and to provide face to face
staff training to include all aspects of alcohol sales.
In considering the objections raised the
Sub-Committee noted that the comments related to concerns around
crime and disorder and litter as a public nuisance.
With regards to crime and disorder, the
Sub-Committee noted the S182 Guidance which states that when
considering the Crime and Disorder licensing objective that
“Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main
source of advice on crime and disorder.” The Senior Licensing
Officer confirmed that the police had expressly said that they did
not object to the application.
The Sub-Committee considered that the objections
around alcohol abuse related to the Lowesmoor area rather than evidence that the
applicant’s premises was the source of concern.
With regards to litter, the Sub-Committee did not
consider that there was evidence that this business would generate
The Sub-Committee noted that there were no
objections from any of the Responsible Authorities.
The Sub-Committee was of the view that Ms
Kwiatek was a responsible business
operator who had shown understanding of the impact that this
business would have on the local community and had put in place
strategies and policies such as CCTV, staff training and signage
that would promote the licensing objective.
The Sub-Committee would remind all parties that at
any stage, following the grant of a premises licence, a responsible
authority, or any other person, may ask the licensing authority to
review the licence because of a matter arising at the premises in
connection with any of the four licensing objectives.
An appeal to the
Magistrates’ Court against the Sub-Committee’s decision
must be lodged within 21 days of the date on which written
confirmation of the decision is received by the
Duration of the meeting: 10:00 to 11:15
Chair at the meeting on Thursday 12 May 2022