Agenda and minutes

The Panel is requested to elect a Chairman for the hearing in line with rules agreed by the Licensing and Safety Committee. 

Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers was elected Chairman for this meeting.

There were none.

The Chairman advised that since the publication of the main agenda, Councillor McDonald had replaced Councillor Browne as a member of the Panel and Councillor Prenter had replaced Councillor Mahil as the fourth member.

To agree that the Chairman, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

It was agreed that the Chairman, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, would sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

There were none. 

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.  Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 5.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

In accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises licence in respect of Bas Bar, 14 Cliffe Road, Strood, Kent ME2 3DS. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.

No representations in support of or objecting to the review have been received from members of the public or other responsible authorities.

Discussion:

The Chairman asked those present to introduce themselves and explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined in the agenda.

The Licensing Officer stated that, in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing Premises Licence for Bas Bar, 14 Cliffe Road, Strood, Rochester, ME2 3DS. She advised that the grounds for the review related to two of the four licensing objectives:

·           The prevention of crime and disorder.

·           Public safety.

The application had been correctly advertised for the required timescale by placing notices at the premises, Council contact points and on the Council’s website in accordance with regulations made under the Licensing Act 2003.  Also in accordance with the legislation, notice of the application (and the application itself) had been served on the relevant parties for the licensed premises along with the other responsible authorities.

The following documents were included in the agenda pack for the Panel’s consideration:

·           Appendix A – The application for review.

·           Appendix B – The current premises licence, attached to Supplementary Agenda no. 1.

·           Appendix C – A plan showing the location of the premises.

The Licensing Officer drew the Panel’s attention to the grounds for the review in relation to the Licensing Objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 and also to paragraph 3 of the agenda report - advice and analysis on determination of review application, which set out the options for the Panel.

The Chairman invited the representatives from Kent Police to present the application for a licence review.  PC Hunt outlined a visit to the premises by Home Office Immigration Officers executing a warrant on Thursday 2 May 2019 during which he had been in attendance. Three persons had been found to be working at the premises illegally and they had been interviewed at the scene by Immigration Officers. All three stated that they had only been working at the premises for a short time and only one confirmed that he had shown his employer documentation prior to commencing work, this being a photocopy of his passport and a photocopy of a settlement visa for which he had paid £20. In interview, Mr Harjot Singh had stated that the three persons had told him that their immigration status was ‘indefinite leave to remain’. He had also stated that two of them had yet to receive any wages as they had failed to provide documentation of their right to work.

PC Hunt stated that Kent Police also had concerns regarding the failure to comply with the conditions of the premises licence. Specifically, CCTV was only storing data for eight days; there were no staff training records on site; and there was no incident recording book. In the opinion of Kent Police these amounted to breaches of licence conditions 9, 13 and 18.

With reference to sections 11.24, 11.27 and 11.28 of the Guidance to the Licensing Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

In accordance with Sections 42 and 37 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received applications to transfer the existing premises licence and vary the Designated Premises Supervisor in respect of Bas Bar, 14 Cliffe Road, Strood, Kent ME2 3DS. Kent Police has been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.

Kent Police served Medway Council with a notice stating granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objective.

Discussion:

Following the review of the premises licence for Bas Bar, 14 Cliffe Road, Strood, Rochester, ME2 3DS, which resulted in the Panel suspending the licence for a period of three months, the Panel considered Mr Harjot Singh’s application to transfer the premises licence from Mr Sukhbir Singh to himself and also the application from Mr Sukhbir Singh to vary the licence to specify Mr Harjot Singh as the Designated Premises Supervisor.

The Chairman invited Mr Harjot Singh to present the applications and he assured the Panel that, as Designated Premises Supervisor, he would follow all the rules and conditions which he believed he was currently doing.

In response to questions from the representatives of Kent Police, Mr Singh confirmed that he was the sole owner of the business. Asked who would assist him with the administration of the business, Mr Singh responded that four members of staff were due to attend a licensing course on 15 July 2019 and they would be able to assist with the running of the business during busy periods.

In response to questions from Panel members, Mr Singh was unable to identify the four Licensing Objectives. He confirmed that he had an accountant for the business.

The Chairman invited the representatives from Kent Police to present their representations against the applications and PC Hunt confirmed that these were based on the same concerns that he had expressed during the review hearing.  

There being no questions for the representatives of Kent Police, Mr Singh summed up by asking the Panel to give him a chance following the previous situation, which had been the first time he had made such a mistake.

The Chairman asked all parties to leave the room during the Panel’s deliberations. They returned for the Chairman’s announcement of the Panel’s decisions.

Decision:

1.     In considering the application to transfer the premises licence for Bas Bar, 14 Cliffe Road, Strood, Rochester, ME2 3DS, from Mr Sukhbir Singh to Mr Harjot Singh and the application to vary the licence to specify Mr Harjot Singh as the Designated Premises Supervisor, the Panel had regard to all the written evidence before it and had listened carefully to all the oral evidence presented by the owner of the business and by the representatives of Kent Police.

2.     The Panel decided unanimously to refuse both applications as it was not satisfied that Mr Harjot Singh had demonstrated the required level of understanding of the Licensing Objectives to fulfil the responsibilities of a Premises Licence Holder or Designated Premises Supervisor.

3.     The Panel advised Mr Harjot Singh to consider undertake training to assist him in fulfilling these roles.

It is recommended that the Panel exclude the press and public from the meeting during the decision-making process for the reasons set out in the report.

Decision:

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making in respect of agenda items 6 and 7, because consideration of these matters in public would disclosure information falling within paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as specified in agenda item 8 (Exclusion of the Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Panel considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.