Agenda item

Purpose.

The committee is asked to determine this matter.

In attendance

Mr Yaqubi, the applicant

Mr Sadiqi, friend of the applicant and acting as his interpreter.

DECISION: the application was refused.

REASONS

The committee heard the representations of the applicant (and/or their representatives), the relevant Responsible Authorities and also considered all the papers put before it along with the annexes attached to each document.

The Responsible Authorities (Police and Licensing) asserted that there were no proposed measures offered by the applicants' sufficient to promote the licensing objective of: the prevention of crime and disorder.

In addition it was asserted by both of the Responsible Authorities that the current licensing permissions were not being adhered to which is the subject of ongoing investigation and potential prosecution. (Annex D).

The committee looks to all the Responsible Authorities but mainly the Police for guidance and assistance in determining the effect of a licensing activity in terms of all the licensing objectives, but principally in terms of the police, prevention of crime and disorder - the committee should, but is not obliged to accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the police.

The committee took a similar view with respect to the representations made the Licensing Department.

The above stated the committee balanced within their consideration all representations made by the applicants through his representative and by way of comments made by the current licensee/ applicant.

In considering the application the committee was mindful of the following and considered that having heard all matters today could conclude that the following facts had been established:

1.     That with respect to the current application for variation whilst the police have engaged and suggested an appropriate condition with respect to the licence the applicant had neither responded or considered undertaking the provision of CCTV until the email of 27 December 2016.  Such conduct and lack of engagement was not consistent with the promotion of the relevant licensing objective.

2.     The committee was entitled to conclude that the current licence holder had traded beyond his current licence entitlement on numerous occasions and whilst the current application was not a review would be entitled to conclude that the flagrant breaches were indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the applicant and not consistent with respect to promotion of any licensing objective, but particularly with respect to the prevention of crime and disorder.

3.     The committee accepted that the behaviour of the applicant on 24 December 2016 was again not consistent with the promotion of a licensing objective in that the police attendance and obstruction is upon any balanced basis potentially indicative of how the licence holder would continue to act.

4.     The committee saw and accepted that the premise was advertised as being open at 4am which is potentially indicative of suggesting a desire upon the part of the licence holder to continue to trade beyond the permitted hours. The committee considered that when this point is looked at within the context of Annex D that the production of numerous till receipts would lead to a reasonable finding that late night refreshment was provided.                                             

5.     In addition to the above it was clear that despite the early engagement of the relevant responsible authorities (the police and licensing authority) that the applicant further by himself or his employees continued to breach on a deliberate basis the current licence.

Whilst the applicant put forward a range of conditions in an attempt to assuage the committee it was not clear who or how this would be dealt with (despite not having engaged with the Responsible Authority (the police) before the hearing), and having considered the factual evidence produced by the police and having reviewed all aspects of the case on balance with due regard being given to all the circumstance of the case the committee is entitled to refuse the application for variation.  The application was refused.

The committee stated that each application for a licence or a variation shall be considered on merit and with due consideration as to the specific facts of each case.  In light of the above comments that should a future applicant for variation be made it would be appropriate for such an application to not be made for a period of six months and that such application should fully set out in its operational schedule the basis upon which all licensing objectives will be promoted.  Also that the current licence was being fully complied with.

In addition and for the avoidance of doubt, the committee did consider the ability under the 2003 Act to consider a review and how and by whom a review could be initiated but were not of the mind that this was an appropriate safety mechanism in this case and that only a clear refusal would be appropriate. Again and for the avoidance of doubt should anyone or any Responsible Authority consider requesting a review of the current premise licence then a fresh committee will consider the above evidence and determine such application upon the merits.

The applicants have a right to appeal this decision.