Venue: Room 206, Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Damian Eaton (0161 474 3207)
To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2018.
The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2018 (copies of which had been circulated) were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Declarations of Interest
Councillors and officers are invited to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.
Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests which they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.
No declarations were made.
Public Question Time
Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and members of the Sub-Committee on any matters within the powers and duties of the Sub-Committee, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted prior to the commencement of the meeting on the cards provided. These are available at the meeting).
No public questions were submitted.
Exclusion of the Public and the Public Interest Test
To consider whether it is in the public interest to exclude the public during consideration of agenda items 5 (Licensing Act 2003: Application to Transfer Premises Licence Holder and Vary Designated Premises Supervisor at Best One, Lancashire Hill, Stockport) as the report contained information ‘not for publication’ in accordance with Section 14(2) of The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 and where the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 5 – ‘Licensing Act 2003: Application to Transfer Premises Licence Holder and Vary Designated Premises Supervisor at Best One, Lancashire Hill, Stockport’ to prevent the disclosure of information relating to an individual in accordance with Section 14(2) of The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005. It would not, on balance, be in the public interest to disclose this information because disclosure of the personal information would not be fair to the applicant and would breach their data protection rights and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration.
The report details an application from Miss Iqbal Alradhi to transfer the premises licence and an application to vary a premises licence to specify an individual as designated premises supervisor at Best One, Lancashire Hill, Heaton Norris, Stockport.
The Sub-Committee is recommended to consider the application to transfer the Premises Licence and the application to vary the premises licence to specify an individual as designated premises supervisor at Best One, Lancashire Hill, Heaton Norris, Stockport.
Officer contact: Peter Cooke on 0161 474 4851 or email: email@example.com
A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing applications received on behalf of Miss Iqbal Alradhi to transfer the premises licence and to vary the premises licence to specify an individual as designated premises supervisor at Best One, Lancashire Hill, Heaton Norris, Stockport.
The representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration advised the Sub-Committee that the applicant’s representative had given notice that they wished to request that the Sub-Committee give consideration to the adjournment of the hearing in the light of the fact that they had only recently been instructed by the applicant.
However, the Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had been duly notified of the date and time of the hearing, which had been convened within the statutory timeframe for the determination of the application, and that it would not be in the public interest to delay proceedings by virtue of the applicant’s failure to appoint representation in a timely fashion. The request for an adjournment was therefore rejected.
The Sub-Committee further noted that the applicant had not advised the Licensing Authority in advance of their intention to attend the hearing, nor had they or their representative attended the hearing in person. The Sub-Committee therefore proceeded to consider the application on the basis of the written submission.
A representative of the Chief Officer of Greater Manchester Police, having previously submitted a written notice under Section 42(6) of the Licensing Act 2003 detailing their view that the exceptional circumstances of the case were such that the granting of the application would undermine the crime prevention objective, also attended the meeting, explained their objections to the proposals and answered Councillors’ questions in relation to the application.
The Sub-Committee, having heard the interested parties, proceeded to consider the crime prevention objective in respect of the application, together with the relevant parts of the Council’s Licensing Policy and the guidance from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. However, the decision was reached on consideration of all the arguments given in relation to this specific application.
The Sub-Committee found the following:-
Crime and Disorder
The Sub-Committee was satisfied that a notice had been submitted in accordance with Section 42(6) of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of this licensing objective, specifically the notice asserted that the proposed licence holder and designated premises supervisor had employed a person to work on the premises, and had further permitted that person to authorise the sale of alcohol from the premises, who was wholly unsuited to such a role by virtue of the allegations of serious criminal activity on their part.
This Licensing Authority (by resolution of a Licensing Sub-Committee on 30 May 2018) had previously determined that on the basis of the evidence presented, it was more likely than not that this individual was responsible for the alleged actions and that the effect of these was to seriously undermine the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.
It was the view of the Sub-Committee that in employing this individual to work in the premises, and to further permit this person to authorise the sale of alcohol, demonstrated a significant failure on the part of the applicant to satisfactorily promote the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.
It was then
RESOLVED – That in the light of the findings of the Sub-Committee in relation to the Section 42(6) notice submitted on behalf of the Chief Office of Greater Manchester Police, the application be rejected on the grounds that to do so would be appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.