Meeting documents

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that Councillor Rainsbury be appointed chairman for the meeting.

There were no apologies reported.

There were no declarations of interest declared.

The Licensing Panel considered the application for the grant of a Premises Licence submitted under section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003.

?

With the permission of the panel and in accordance with the council?s hearing procedure, the Licensing Officer introduced the application. The applicant (accompanied by his cousin) then addressed the panel and questions were asked. Lancashire Police and the Licensing Enforcement Officer (on behalf of the Licensing Authority) objecting to the application then addressed the panel and questions were asked.

?

Having fully considered the representations (written and oral) made by Lancashire Police, the Licensing Enforcement Officer and the application made by the applicant, the panel retired to reach its decision.

?

The panel took into account the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, the guidance issued in respect of it and the council?s own policy document.

?

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that the application be refused on the evidence/observations as set out below.

?

1. The applicant, Mr Wasim Wajid had applied for a Premises Licence in respect of the above premises.

2. The panel noted the Licensing Authority, had provided the applicant with a written warning for trading without a premises licence on 26 February 2015, after being caught trading without a Premises Licence on 11 February 2015. He was notified that it was an offence under S136 (1) Licensing Act 2003 to trade without a late night refreshment licence after 11pm.

3. Subsequently, Mr Wajid made an application for a Premises Licence which was partially completed. This was returned to him, advising him of the legal requirements and to seek legal advice on the 26 March 2015.

4. Following further receipt of the application from the applicant, the Licensing Authority wrote to Mr Wajid on 30 April 2015, informing him that his application had been suspended, as he had not complied with the legal requirements.

5. During a multi-agency operation on 21 August 2015, Niky Barrett, Licensing Officer, was able to order and was served with hot food after 11pm. This was an illegal act under S136(1) Licensing Act 2003, which the applicant had previously been notified of.

6. Mr Wajid was subsequently convicted at Preston Magistrates Court for an offence under S136(1) Licensing Act 2003 on 17 September 2015.

7. The panel were notified that Mr Wajid had a violent background which included Actual Bodily Harm. The applicant also has a history of dishonesty in respect of previous fraud offences and recently on the 11 February 2015, when the electric meter at the Kebab House was removed, as the electricity was being abstracted unlawfully and the meter had been tampered with.

8. The panel were of the view that this illegal act of abstraction of electricity meant that the applicant had placed his own staff and members of the public at risk. The panel noted that the licensing objectives in respect of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety had been undermined.

9. The panel observed that the applicant had not taken advice from the Licensing Authority. He had also shown an unwillingness to work with the police and the Licensing Authority and had a total disregard of the law.

10. It was noted that the applicant had offered steps to promote the licensing objectives, however, he had demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the term responsibility in relation to crime and disorder and public safety and these steps would not redress the undermining of the licensing objectives.

11. The applicant had stated that it was totally the responsibility of the police to deal with the licensing objectives, however, the panel were of the view that the responsibility lies with a number of sources; the general public, the licensing authority, business premises, especially license premises holders to work in partnership with the police to maintain and uphold a civil and organised society and to promote the licensing objectives.

12. The panel observed that as the applicant had not co-operated with the relevant authorities and had not shown any commitment to work and engage with them, they had no confidence that even if any conditions were attached to a licence, that the applicant would comply with the same to redress the balance, as he had a propensity to undermine the licensing objectives.