|Place:||Wheel Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland PR25 1DH|
|Present:||Councillors Mrs A A Ball, Mr J Rainsbury, Mr C W Tomlinson|
|In attendance:||Kay Lovelady (Principal Solicitor), Niky Barrett (Licensing Enforcement Officer), Nicola Thompson (Temporary Solicitor) and Dave Lee (Democratic Services Officer)|
Other Members: Councillors Ms Bell and Bradley
Appointment of Chairman
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that Councillor Rainsbury be appointed chairman for the meeting.
Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies reported.
Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest declared.
Review of Premises Licence: Kwiksave Local, 12-14 Stanifield Lane, Farington
The Licensing Panel considered an application by Lancashire Constabulary for a review of a premises licence under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. This application was in respect of Kwiksave Local, 12-14 Stanifield Lane, Farington.
The panel noted that that since Lancashire Constabulary?s application for review had been made the council had received an application to transfer the premises licence and change of Designated Premises Supervisor to Mr M S Rokad.
With the permission of the panel and in accordance with the council?s hearing procedure, the Temporary Solicitor introduced the application.
The applicant (the police?s representative, Sergeant Bushell), then addressed the panel and questions were asked. Mr Rokad (the applicant for the Premises Licence and Designated Premises Supervisor) accompanied by his legal representative then addressed the panel and questions were asked.
Having fully considered the representations, the panel retired to reach its decision.
In reaching their decision the panel took into account the following ?
? both written and oral evidence presented in connection with the hearing
? Licensing Act 2003
? S182 Amended Guidance of the Licensing Act 2003 and taken into account the references to the guidance made by both parties.
? South Ribble Borough Council?s Licensing Policy
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that the application to revoke the premises licence in respect of Kwiksave Local, 12-14 Stanifield Lane, Farington, be granted for the reasons as set out below.
The panel ?
(i) initially considered whether any of the licensing objectives had been undermined. Their conclusion was that the objective in respect of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder had been undermined.
In the light of the above the panel went on to consider the options available which were:
- Do nothing
- Apply/Modify the Conditions on the Licence
- Suspend the Licence
- Revoke the Licence
(ii) noted that as one of the licensing objectives had been undermined they concluded that they did not have the option to do nothing. They also discounted the option to suspend the licence as they did not feel that this would serve any useful purpose.
(iii) then went on to consider whether altering of adding conditions to the licence would be enough to redress the balance in respect of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder objective.
(iv) accepted the police?s contention that they were not experts in authenticating visa/identity documents and that to ask them to do so would cause an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on the police.
(v) accepted the evidence that they did not have the authority to impose a condition that either duplicated or conflicted with current legislation.
(vi) took into account Mr Rokad?s evidence regarding his involvement with the premises. They did not accept that Mr Rokad was not involved in the business prior to August 2012. In reaching this decision they took into account the following:
- the information provided from Companies House showing Mr Rokad as one of two directors of Kwik Save Local Ltd. They did not believe Mr Rokad when he said that he did not know Mrs Sikander Ayad and was not a joint director with her.
- the fact that Mr Rokad is recorded as paying business rates at the premises since December 2011
- Mr Rokad?s presence at the premises in January 2012 and that an application to transfer the licence was received by the Licensing Authority after Mr Rokad was advised that it was required. Also Mr Rokad?s name appeared on the paperwork to transfer the premises licence. They believed that even if it was later crossed out and replaced by the name of Mr Mohmed Shuiab Iqbal on a balance of probabilities they could conclude that Mr Rokad was involved with the shop and Mrs Sikander Ayad who appeared to have completed the paperwork and wrote Mr Rokad?s name.
- Mr Rokad had not provided any evidence to substantiate his position or dispute the police?s evidence despite knowing about the evidence from the police regarding his involvement in the shop since 18/9/12 when the review papers were submitted
- had no confidence that Mr Rokad would be in day to day control of the premises or have regard to the conditions in particular in respect of the employment of illegal immigrants even if adopted/modified.
- accepted the evidence of the police that there had been no certainty as to who has been in charge of the premises and who was authorising the sale of alcohol and ensuring compliance with the legislative requirements
- accepted that there had been no failed test purchase operations at the premises but believed that the issue in this case was the employment of illegal immigrants and the undermining of the objective of the prevention of crime and disorder that was for their consideration.
(vii) therefore concluded that the modification or addition of conditions would not redress the undermining of the licensing objective.
The panel therefore concluded in light of the above the only appropriate and proportionate conclusion they could reach would be to revoke the licence.