Agenda item

1.     Review of Premises Licence: Cleveland Huntsman, Viewley Centre Road, Hemlington, Middlesbrough, TS8 9DW

 

2.     Review of interim steps imposed at the summary review hearing on 28 July 2025

A report of the Director of Environment and Community Services had been circulated outlining an application for a Summary Review of the Premises Licence in respect of The Cleveland Huntsman, Viewley Centre Road, Hemlington, Middlesbrough, TS8 9DW, Ref No. PR0072.

 

Summary of Current Licensable Activities and Hours

 

Live music, recorded music, facilities for dancing, facility like music/dance, sale of alcohol on and off the premises.

 

11.00am to Midnight Monday, Thursday, Friday & Saturday.

11.00am to 11.00pm Tuesday and Wednesday.

Noon to 10.30pm Sunday.

 

A copy of the current Premises Licence and accompanying operating schedule was attached at Appendix 2. 

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

 

Details of the Application

 

The Licensing Manager presented the report outlining the application for a Summary Review of the Premises Licence in respect of Cleveland Huntsman, Viewley Hill Road, Hemlington, Middlesbrough, TS8 9DW, Ref PR0072. 

 

Following an application made on 25 July 2025, by Cleveland Police, for a Summary Review of the Premises Licence, a Summary Review Hearing was held on 28 July 2025.  The application was made in response to an incident of serious crime at the premises on 24 July 2025.  A copy of the application was attached at Appendix 1.

 

At the Summary Review Hearing on 28 July, under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003, the Committee considered whether it was necessary to impose interim steps pending a full review hearing.

 

The Committee determined it necessary to take the following interim steps under Section 53B of the Act:-

 

1.     To suspend the whole of the Premises Licence

2.     To remove the Designated Premises Supervisor

 

The reasons for the decision were set out at paragraphs 9) to 18) in the submitted report.

 

By way of background to the premises, the report outlined that it had operated as a community pub adjacent to a shopping parade.  It had the benefit of a premises licence since 2005 and had operated for many years prior to that date.

 

The report also referred to the relevant sections of the Council’s Licensing Policy, relevant sections of the Guidance to the Licensing Act, including Summary Reviews, and the options available to Members in determining the review and the review of the interim steps imposed on 28 July 2025.

 

 

Representations

 

In response to the notice of the application to review the premises licence, published on 25 July 2025, six representations were received, between 3 and 8 August 2025, from local residents in support of the former Designated Premises Supervisor, two of whom were in attendance at the meeting.  The representations were attached at Appendices 3 to 8 of the submitted report.

 

On 8 August 2025, further evidence was received from Seargeant Bavin, Cleveland Police, attached at Appendix 9.

 

Additional Information

 

The Licensing Manager advised that there had been ongoing discussions between Cleveland Police and the Premises Licence Holder, resulting in a proposed set of revised conditions (which would replace Annex 2 of the current Premises Licence conditions).  The proposed conditions had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting.

 

Applicant in Attendance

 

The Police Legal Representative, presented the case on behalf of the applicant, Cleveland Police.

 

Reference was made to the CCTV footage of the incident which Members had viewed at the Summary Review Hearing on 28 July 2025.  It was highlighted that the footage could be made available again should Members wish to view it, however, the Police would make an application to exclude the press and public from the meeting whilst the footage was shown.  It was noted that the Sub Committee comprised the same three Members as at the meeting on 28 July, and Members subsequently agreed it was not necessary to view the footage again.

 

Reference was made to the proposed revised conditions, agreed between Cleveland Police and the Premises Licence Holder.  Whilst it was accepted that the revised conditions would have been unlikely to have prevented the incident that occurred on 24 July, both parties believed that the revisions would bring the licence in line with similar premises and be sufficient to uphold the Licensing Objectives.

 

It was stated that the Premises Licence Holder, in this case Star Pubs Trading Ltd, had engaged positively with Cleveland Police and had complied with the interim steps imposed at the Summary Review Hearing.  The premises had remained closed following the suspension of the premises licence and the DPS had been removed and this included steps in place to remove the DPS from the residential dwelling above the pub itself as the Police had concerns that until the DPS had vacated the residential flat, there was a risk that they may take up a role within the pub.  It was noted that the Police had considered seeking a condition on the licence that the former DPS was to have no involvement with the premises, however, the Police considered that this would not be necessary due to the Premises Licence Holder indicating that the DPS had gone to live elsewhere and that they expected to take vacant possession of the whole of the premises from next week. 

 

In terms of the options available to Members, the Police Legal Representative stated that Cleveland Police sought the modification of the conditions of the premises licence, as circulated prior to the meeting, in order to strengthen the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.  It was highlighted that the premises would not be able to operate until a suitable DPS was appointed.

 

Questions from Members and Interested Parties

 

It was confirmed that there were no questions from Members or the interested parties.

 

Premises Licence Holder (Respondent) in Attendance

 

The Premises Licence Holder’s Legal Representative provided background to Star Pubs Trading Ltd, stating it was a subsidiary of Heineken UK which operated around 2,400 pubs, with the majority being local, community-based pubs similar to the Cleveland Huntsman.

 

The Legal Representative stated that since becoming the DPS for the premises, there had been no issue until the incident that had triggered the summary review.  The Premises Licence Holder had been in agreement with the interim steps imposed and had been in regular contact with Cleveland Police since that time.  Both parties had agreed the proposed conditions which would replace the current Annex 2 on the Premises Licence.

 

As previously stated, the DPS leased the living accommodation above the premises and was currently living elsewhere.  Notice was given to the DPS to formally vacate the premises week commencing 25 August 2025 and vacant possession was expected at that time.

 

The Premises Licence Holder would seek to appoint a suitable DPS, in liaison with Cleveland Police, therefore, the premises would remain closed until such time that a suitable DPS was appointed.  The Legal Representative apologised, on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder, for the problems that had arisen and stated that they were keen for the premises to return to a stable footing.  They did not wish for the premises to remain closed on a long term basis and were of the opinion that with a new tenant DPS in situ, and the updated conditions, the premises could return to being a community-based pub.

 

Questions from Members and Interested Parties

 

It was confirmed that there were no questions from Members or the interested parties, however, the Council’s Legal Representative raised the following issues:-

 

·        It was understood that the DPS had been removed, however, it was queried what the access arrangements were between the pub and the flat above and whether there was direct access from the flat into the pub.  The Premises Licence Holder responded that there was access from the flat directly into the pub below as well and private access to the flat from outside.

 

·        The Legal Representative queried whether there could be any potential issues should vacant possession not be achieved quickly.  The Premises Licence Holder advised that they would not let the premises without first achieving full vacant possession.

 

Those Making Representations

 

Two local residents were in attendance at the meeting, having provided written support in favour of the DPS, within the specified timeframe, and were invited to speak should they wish to do so.

 

T Hufton spoke in support of the DPS stating that whilst she had only known the DPS for a short time, she had brought the community together and had made everyone feel welcome.  She stated that she personally felt comfortable visiting the premises and that the DPS had tried to involve families from the local community.  She felt that it was a shame that the DPS had to be removed due to the actions of another person.

 

Ms Hufton asked the Premises Licence Holder how they intended to prevent any similar situations occurring at the premises in future in relation to problem customers.  The Premises Licence Holder’s legal representative stated that the Premises Licence Holder would need to ensure any information in relation to such incidents was shared with them and they would take the appropriate course of action.

 

Summing Up

 

Both parties were afforded the opportunity to sum up.

 

The Police Legal Representative confirmed that there was nothing further to add.

 

The Premises Licence Holder’s Legal Representative summed up by stating that it had been an unfortunate event and that they had been grateful to work with the Police and had been in agreement with the imposition of the interim steps to suspend the licence and remove the DPS.  They had continued to work with the Police since that time to agree modified conditions to the licence and would continue to work with the Police during the process of appointing a suitable replacement DPS for the premises, with the aim of the premises reopening and providing a hub for the community.

 

It was confirmed that there were no questions from Members or the relevant parties and all interested parties other than the Officers of Legal and Democratic Services, withdrew whilst the Committee determined the review. 

 

Subsequently, all parties returned and the Chair announced the Sub Committee’s decision as follows:-

 

DECISION

 

ORDERED that the Premises Licence in respect of the Cleveland Huntsman, Viewley Centre Road, Hemlington, TS8 9DW, Ref No: PR0072, be retained, but that the conditions on the licence be modified and the Designated Premises Supervisor be removed and that the interim steps remain in place, as follows:-

 

Decision - Summary Review Under Section 53C of the Act

 

1.     The Committee decided that the Premises Licence could be retained, however, the conditions on the Premises Licence were to be modified as set out in the appendix to this decision.

 

2.     That the Designated Premises Supervisor be removed from the Licence.

 

 

Decision - Review of Interim Steps Under Section 53D of the Act

 

1.     The Committee considered that it was appropriate, for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, for the interim steps to remain in place.

 

Authority/Power to Act/Considerations – Review of Premises Licence Section 53C of the Act

 

1.     The Cleveland Huntsman operated as a public house.  Under the Premises Licence it was permitted to sell alcohol between 11.00am to midnight Monday, Thursday, Friday & Saturday, 11.00am to 11.00pm Tuesday and Wednesday and Noon to 10.30pm on a Sunday.

 

2.     An application for a summary review was received from Cleveland Police on 25 July 2025, under section 53A of the Act, in relation to a serious violent incident that occurred on 24 July 2025.  In accordance with sections 53A and B of the Act, the Council held a hearing, within 48 hours, on 28 July 2025 to determine whether it was necessary to take interim steps pending the determination of a review of the licence.

 

3.     The incident involved the partner of the DPS at the time, in an altercation outside the Premises.  The Premises were open and serving alcohol when an argument broke out between the victim and the perpetrator.  The perpetrator used a bladed article to slash at the victim’s neck as well as stab the victim to the abdomen area causing a puncture wound. The victim was taken to hospital.

 

4.     No attempts were made by the Designated Premises Supervisor to contact the Ambulance service or Cleveland Police.  The Police only became aware of the incident when notified by the Ambulance service.  The Ambulance service was contacted by a third party.

 

5.     On 28 July 2025, the Committee heard representations from the Police and the Premises Licence Holder and decided to remove the Designated Premises Supervisor and to suspend the licence as the interim steps pending the review.  This decision was made in order to alleviate the risk of harm as well as to promote public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

6.     It was noted that both the Police and Premises Licence Holder were in agreement with the interim steps.

 

7.     In accordance with Section 53A(b) and C, following receipt of an application under Section 53A, the Licensing Authority must hold a hearing to consider the application for the review and any relevant representations within 28 days.

 

8.     The Sub Committee must take such steps (if any) as it considered appropriate to promote the licensing objectives which were: the promotion of (a) the prevention of crime and disorder; (b) public safety; (c) the prevention of public nuisance; and (d) the protection of children from harm.

 

9.     The steps set out in Section 53C were (a) the modification of the conditions of the premises licence, (b) the exclusion of a licensable activity from the scope of the licence, (c) the removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence, (d) the suspension of the licence for a period not exceeding three months, or (e) the revocation of the licence.

 

10.  The Committee considered the report and appendices, as well as the representations from the parties during the hearing. It considered relevant parts of the Act and Government Guidance.

 

Reasons for the Decision – Review of Licence under Section 53C of the Act

 

11.  The Committee first heard representations from the Applicant.  The Police summarised their necessity to make an application for a summary review, as aforementioned, due to the premises being associated with serious crime and disorder.  Reference was made to the original application and the serious incident that had occurred.

 

12.  The Police, through their representation, stated that prior to the hearing, they had liaised with the Premise Licence Holder regarding proposed modified conditions that would be agreeable to them.  The Police submitted that the changes would improve the Premises Licence as well as bring it up to date and act as a way of tidying the Licence, whilst ultimately promoting the Licensing Objectives.  It was noted that those conditions were agreed by the Premise Licence Holder.

 

13.  The main concern that the Police had, was that DPS would continue as DPS and, therefore, the risk of serious crime and disorder would remain.  The Police representative confirmed that following pre-hearing discussions, the Premises Licence Holder had assured that steps had been taken to remove the DPS from the Premises’ adjoining residential area, by way of a written notice of possession.  The Police referenced that they would have requested a condition that the DPS could not be named as DPS, but that following the Premises Licence Holder’s assurances, this was no longer sought.

 

14.  No further submissions were made by the Police other than to reiterate that the agreed conditions would promote the Licensing Objectives.

 

15.  The Premises Licence Holder provided a background to their business, that they were a subsidiary of Heineken UK and owned/ran many pubs throughout the UK.  The Premises Licence Holder reiterated their disappointment in the events that led to the summary review and subsequent review of the Licence and stated that this was not a reflection of them and rather an isolated incident of the DPS and her partner.  The Premises Licence Holder apologised for the incident and reiterated that they would ensure, to the best of their ability that it would not happen again.

 

16.  The Committee heard that the Premises Licence Holder agreed with the initial interim steps and did not resist them, nor did they disagree with the proposed conditions of the Police.  It was agreed by the Premises Licence Holder that the addition of new conditions and the modification of original conditions, as proposed by the Police, would better reflect the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

 

17.  Regarding the DPS, the Premises Licence Holder confirmed that they had sought possession and that they had been informed by the DPS that the Premises was now vacant, and further stated that the they may now have completely moved out of the Premises just before the hearing.  It was confirmed that a new DPS and tenant would be sought and that approval from the Police would be requested before any potential suitor would be confirmed.

 

18.  When questioned if the Pub part of the Premises could be accessed from the residential flat above, the Premises Licence Holder confirmed that it could be accessed via an internal door.  When further questioned if this could pose an issue should the DPS refuse to give possession of the separate tenancy of the residential part of the Premises, the Premises Licence Holder confirmed it would not, as they would not be let out or open until the DPS was confirmed to have left.  Until then, the Premises would remain closed.

 

19.  Six representations were made as part of the Licence review and were annexed to the original report of the Licensing Team.  Of those six representations, two of the individuals attended the Committee hearing.  All the representations received were in support of DPS and made arguments for them to remain as DPS despite the incident that occurred.

 

20.  At the Committee hearing, one resident who had made a representation stated that the DPS, through running of the Premises, had brought the community together again and that she had ensured frequenters were comfortable and enjoyed the Premises.  The resident further stated that the victim of the incident was a well-known troublemaker who was banned from the Premises and that this individual should not be allowed to ruin the running of the Premises for the DPS.

 

21.  The Resident questioned the Premises Licence Holder as to what difference changing the DPS would make if the individual, who was the victim of the incident, would be able to allegedly cause problems at the Premises.  The Premises Licence Holder stated they would ensure any new DPS would be supported, informed of any problem frequenters and would ban those who caused issues at the Premises.

 

Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS)

 

22.  The Committee firstly agreed that it was necessary for the DPS to be removed and determined that the incident was because of the DPS and her partner and that the removal of the same would significantly reduce the risk of any further conflict or prevention of the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

 

23.  It was noted that the Committee considered the option of specifically making it a condition of the Licence that former DPS could not be named as the DPS, however, the Committee decided that the action of the Premises Licence Holder to remove her from the Premises, highlighted that there was no intention of her reinstatement.  It was also noted that any proposed new DPS must be agreed by the Police and that the Premises Licence Holder would keep the Premises closed until that time.

 

Conditions

 

24.  The Committee noted the agreed conditions proposed by both the Police and Premises Licence Holder.  The agreed conditions were intended to incorporate those already on the licence as well as amend and add other conditions where in the best interests to do so.  New or amended conditions agreed included (but were not limited to): CCTV, door staff, dispersal policy, glassware, training records, beer garden, young persons and challenge 25.

 

25.  Regarding the agreed proposed conditions for the prevention of crime and disorder, the Committee noted that there were amendments to the CCTV that brought the Licence up to date and ensured that it was more current.

 

26.  The Committee further agreed that the inclusion of having SIA registered door staff for certain periods and events was a positive step in promoting the prevention of crime and disorder. The Committee also agreed that having a dispersal policy in place and making it mandatory that a DPS was at the Premises for certain times, would aid Emergency Services and help to ensure order and safety, subsequently promoting the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

27.  The Committee agreed that the conditions relating to glassware at the Premises, as well as the updated training records condition, would help to promote public safety.  It was noted that the condition regarding training records had made it necessary for a refresher every six months for staff members.  The Committee hoped this would positively ensure staff were aware of what to look for and would ensure that an incident such as the one that had caused this regulatory procedure was prevented in the future.

 

28.  It was determined that adding a condition around the use of the beer garden would help to prevent a public nuisance.

 

29.  Finally, the Committee agreed that in order to protect children from harm, there was a necessity to refresh the conditions on the Licence.  The age children can remain on the Premises at certain times was increased to 18 years old, from 16 years old.  As well as this, the Committee agreed it was important to have a Challenge 25 Policy incorporated into the Licence conditions.

 

30.  In reaching its decision, the Committee considered the representations received as well as from the resident on the day.  Whilst the Committee did consider the live representation and submissions annexed to the report, they found that the incident was too severe and should the DPS remain, the Licensing Objectives would not be promoted.

 

31.  The DPS was removed from the Licence and a full copy of the modified and updated conditions was contained as an annex to the minutes and replaced those headed ‘Licensing Objectives’ at ‘Annex 2 - Conditions consistent with the operating Schedule’ of the Premises Licence.

 

Right of Appeal

 

32.  There was a right of appeal against the decision, by any interested party, to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the decision.  The local magistrates court was the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates Court, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.

 

33.  If a party made an appeal and the Council successfully defended the Committee’s decision it would request the Court to make an order for the party to pay the Council’s costs in defending the decision.

 

INTERIM STEPS

 

Authority / Power to act / considerations Review of Interim Steps under Section 53D of the Act

 

34.  Following a determination of the review under Section 53C, the Committee must further review the interim steps imposed under Section 53B on 28 July 2025.

 

35.  The Committee must consider whether the interim steps were appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, consider any relevant representations and determine whether to withdraw or modify the interim steps taken.

 

36.  The Committee may, on such a review, make any of the following interim steps: (a) the modification of the conditions of the premises licence; (b) the exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of the licence; (c) the removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence; (d) the suspension of the licence.

 

37.  The interim steps imposed after a review would apply to the licence until the end of the period given for appealing the decision - being 21 days - or until an appeal was disposed of or until the end of a period determined by the Committee which cannot exceed the above.

 

38.  In imposing the interim steps, the Committee considered the report, appendices and additional written and oral representations made by the parties.  It considered the Act and Government Guidance.

 

Reasons for the Decision to Impose Interim Steps – Section 53D of the Act

 

39.  It was noted that the Premises Licence Holder accepted the continuation of the interim steps and offered no further representation against them.

 

40.  The Committee heard that the Premises Licence Holder had sought possession of the property from the former DPS, and that the Premises Licence Holder had been verbally informed that the former DPS had left the Premises, including the residential area.

 

41.  The Premises Licence Holder stated that they would not reopen the Premises until they had absolute possession and could find a suitable DPS that had Police approval.

 

42.  In any event, the Committee determined that in order to ensure that the Premises Licence Holder had time and opportunity to regain possession of the Premises, the interim steps would remain in force.

 

Right of Appeal

 

43.  There was a right of appeal against the decision to impose the interim steps by any interested party to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the decision (paragraph 8B of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Act).  The local magistrates court was the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates Court, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.

 

44.  If a party made an appeal and the Council successfully defended the Committee’s decision it would request the Court to make an order for the party to pay the Council’s costs in defending the decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annex – Imposed Conditions

 

Prevention of Crime and Disorder:

 

1. CCTV

 

A digital Closed Circuit Television System (CCTV) will be installed and maintained in good working order and be correctly time and date stamped:

 

·        the system will incorporate sufficient built-in hard-drive capacity to suit the number of cameras installed;

·        CCTV will be capable of providing pictures of evidential quality.  in all lighting conditions, particularly facial recognition;

·        cameras will encompass all ingress and egress to the premises and all areas where the sale/supply of alcohol occurs and all outside areas;

·        the system will record and retain CCTV footage for a minimum of 31 days;

·        the system will record for from opening until close of the premises;

·        the system will incorporate a means of transferring images from the hard-drive to a format that can be played back on a compatible computer;

·        the Digital recorder will be password protected to prevent unauthorised access, tampering, or deletion of images;

·        there will be at all times, when the premises is open, a member of staff on duty with access to the CCTV system who is trained in the use of the equipment;

·        upon receipt of a lawful request for a copy of CCTV footage from Police, Licensing Officers or any other Responsible Authority, the member of staff will produce the footage within 24 hours, or less if urgently required for investigations of serious crime;

·        CCTV footage must be made available to be viewed by the Police, Licensing Officers or other Responsible Authorities on lawful request during an inspection of or visit to the Premises.

 

The entrance area and any subsequent queuing area will be sufficiently lit (excluding local authority lighting) and covered by CCTV.

 

2. Registered SIA Door Staff

 

·        The number of SIA door staff required is at the discretion of the designated premise supervisor and after conducting a risk assessment prior to any events, to include any major or international sporting events, bank holidays, other public holidays, an extension to normal hours etc.

 

·        When deployed they shall remain at the premises until closing and in all cases after all patrons have vacated the premises.

 

3. Incident Book

 

·        An incident book must be kept at the premises and maintained up to date (no later than 24 hours after the incident) at all times and will record the following:

a) Time date and details of all incidents/complaints of crime and disorder or anti-social behaviour

b) All crimes reported to the venue

c) Any faults in the CCTV system, searching equipment or scanning equipment

d) Any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

 

·        The incident book must be made available to Police, Licensing Officers and all other Responsible Authorities on request or during an inspection.

 

4. Dispersal Policy

 

·        The premises shall have an approved documented dispersal policy which shall be implemented for dispersal at all times the premises is open for licensable activity.

 

5. Designated Premises Supervisor

 

·        From 18:00 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday until the premises close there shall be a personal licence holder on duty.

 

6. Refusals Book

 

·        A record shall be kept detailing all refused sales of alcohol. The record should include the date and time of the refused sale and the name of the member of staff who refused the sale. The record shall be made available to the Police, Licensing Officers and all other Responsible Authorities on request or during an inspection.

 

Public Safety

 

7. Glassware

 

·        All glasses used at the premises shall be made from polycarbonates or kite marked toughened glass.

·        No person shall be allowed to leave the premises (except to any area set aside for the consumption of alcohol) with any glasses, open bottles or other open containers of drinks of any kind.

 

8. Training/Records

 

·        Induction training covering the following areas will be completed with every member of staff before employment commences and will be refreshed every 6 months thereafter:

 

Challenge 25

U/A/Proxy sales

Sales to intoxicated persons

Proof of age

Search/drug/dispersal/weapons policies or equivalent.

 

·        Documented training records must be completed in relation to the above and must include the name of the member of staff trained date, time, and content of the training.  The record must be signed by the member of staff who has received the training, the Designated Premises Supervisor/ Premises Licence Holder or external training providers.

 

·        Training records must be accessible at the Premises and made available to the Police, Licensing Officers, and all other Responsible Authorities on request or during an inspection.

The Prevention of Public Nuisance

 

9. Noise

·        All external windows and doors shall be kept closed when regulated entertainment in the form of live and recorded music is taking place, except for access and egress and also in the case of an emergency.

 

·        No noise generated on the premises shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

·        Notices shall be prominently displayed on the premises requesting customers recept the needs of local residents and leave the area quietly.

 

10. Beer Garden

 

·        The external drinking area shall be cleared by 2200 hours, and alcohol in open containers will not be taken outside after 22:00 hours.

 

The Protection of Children from Harm

 

11. Young Persons

 

·        Children under the age of 18 years will not be allowed on the premises unless accompanied by a responsible adult. Children will not be permitted on the premises after 22:00 hours. Unless attending a pre-booked function.

 

·        There shall be a minimum of four notices displayed on the premise indicating that the sale of alcohol to those under the age of 18 is illegal and that those adults who buy alcohol for immediate disposal to those under the age of 18 are committing an offence.

 

·        Food must be made available at all times whilst children under the age of 16 years are on the premises, unless attending a private function.

 

12. Challenge 25 Policy

 

·        A Challenge 25 Policy will be in place at the premises.

 

·        There will be a minimum of four notices/posters displayed in prominent positions inside the premises informing customers that a Challenge 25 policy is in operation.

 

·        Training in relation to Challenge 25, underage sales, sales to adults on behalf of minor (proxy sales), sales to intoxicated persons, refusals registers, incident records and all other conditions on the Premises Licence must be provided and undertaken by all members of staff (whether paid or unpaid) before he / she makes a sale, supply, or delivery of alcohol. 

 

·        Staff must require ID in the form of a current passport, photo card driving licence, PASS Hologram identity card or Military ID from any customer who appears to be under the age of 25 and verify the customer is over the age of 18 before any sale of alcohol is made

 

·        Any identification suspected of being fraudulently used, or not genuine will be confiscated and handed to Police at the earliest opportunity.