Cllrs:   K M Collins

K Janes

            N Warren

To elect a Chairman for the meeting.

Councillor N Warren was elected Chairman for the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced the other members of the Sub-Committee.  The Council officers present then introduced themselves.

To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitute Members.

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive from Members any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

Mr Tayyab Mushtaq.

Unique, 25-27 High Street North, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, LU6 1HX.

Parties in Attendance

Cllr K Collins (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Cllr K Janes (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Cllr N Warren (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Mrs M Bissett – Licensing Officer (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Mr L Manning – Committee Services Officer (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Mrs L McShane – Legal Services Manager – Commercial (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Mrs E Nee – Licensing Officer (Mid County) (Bedfordshire Police)

Mr T Mushtaq (Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor of Unique)

Mr D Dadds – Barrister (Dadds LLP Licensing Solicitors)

Observers

Cllr T Nicols (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Mrs V Clark – Licensing Co-ordinator (Central Bedfordshire Council)

PC L Mitchell (Bedfordshire Police)

Miss C Allen (Unique)

Mr C Welch – Personal Licence Holder (Unique)

Bedfordshire Police objected to the variation of the Designated Premises Supervisor at Unique, 25-27 High Street North, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, LU6 1HX on the basis that it would undermine the following Licensing Objectives:

·         Prevention of crime and disorder

·         Public safety

·         Prevention of public nuisance.

To note the procedure for hearing applications under the Licensing Act 2003 (copy attached).

The procedure for the hearing of applications made under the Licensing Act 2003 was noted.

To note the four Licensing Objectives (copy attached).

The four Licensing Objectives were noted.

To note an extract from chapter 4 of the revised guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 which relates to new Designated Premises Supervisors (copy attached).

An extract from chapter 4 of the revised guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 which related to new Designated Premises Supervisors was noted.

To determine an application for the variation of a Designated Premises Supervisor, made under the Licensing Act 2003, to which an objection from the Police Licensing Officer has been received.

The Chairman explained that the Sub-Committee was required to determine an application made under the Licensing Act 2003 for the variation of a Designated Premises Supervisor at Unique to which an objection had been received from Bedfordshire Police.

Given the presence of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972 within Appendix B to the report of the Head of Public Protection, a brief discussion took place on whether the observers present at the meeting be allowed to remain for training purposes should the resolution to exclude the press and public be passed.  All parties agreed that the observers be allowed to remain in the meeting room.

To consider whether to pass a resolution under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the Press and Public from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that the consideration of the item is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

It was resolved that in accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting when considering the application for a variation of a Designated Premises Supervisor on the grounds that consideration of the item was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider exempt Appendix B.

The Sub-Committee considered a report from the Head of Public Protection which asked Members to determine an application by the Premises Licence Holder at Unique for the variation of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) to enable him (the Applicant) to also undertake the DPS role.  The Licensing Officer explained that only the police could raise an objection to the application.  In relation to this point, the Sub-Committee was aware that the police objection and the reasons for it were set out within exempt Appendix B to the Head of Public Protection’s report.

A brief exchange of information took place in response to a query from the Chairman to the Licensing Officer and a question by the Applicant’s barrister. 

There were no further questions or points requiring clarification by the Licensing Officer.

The Applicant’s barrister introduced himself.  He explained that the Applicant had become the DPS with immediate effect on 15 April 2015, the date of his application.  The barrister reminded the Sub-Committee that a DPS was required under the Licensing Act and that the DPS acted as the point of contact for the Responsible Authorities so that any problems that arose at licensed premises could be quickly dealt with.  The barrister then drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the Licensing Act’s requirement that the police could only object to the designation of a new DPS where, in exceptional circumstances, they believed the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective.   The barrister stated, however, that the police objection to his client undertaking the DPS role was without any foundation as the Applicant had not been found guilty of any criminal offence.  Further, the police had failed to provide supporting evidence, for example in the form of witness statements, for the reasons they had given for their objection to the application.  As such he believed the criteria of ‘exceptional circumstances’ had not been met.  He then suggested possible reasons why accusations had been made by other persons against his client.  The barrister added that his client, whilst acknowledging that he occasionally drank whilst at Unique, had not broken any law by doing so.  Nonetheless, his client had undertaken to refrain from drinking on the premises in future.

In response to a comment by the Chairman the Applicant’s barrister stressed that any police objection in relation to the designation of a new DPS could only be made in exceptional circumstances.  He believed the police had failed to interpret this requirement of the Licensing Act correctly and the ‘exceptional circumstances’ did not exist.

The Chairman referred to the allegations regarding the Applicant’s behaviour set out within the police report and asked the Applicant’s barrister if he felt they met the requirement for ‘exceptional circumstances’.  In response the Applicant’s barrister reiterated that the police report contained various allegations and a claim that the crime prevention objective had been undermined but there was a lack of any supporting evidence.

The Applicant’s barrister responded to Members’ requests for clarification.

No witnesses were called and no new documentary evidence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.