Agenda item

Application for Review of a Premises Licence - Shozna, 153-155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent, ME1 1RR

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 Shozna, 153-155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent, ME1 1RR.

 

All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.  Representations supporting the review have been received from the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement), who are a responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003, and from a member of the public.  No further representations supporting the review have been received from other responsible authorities or members of the public.

Minutes:

The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer said that, in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for review from Kent Police as a responsible authority, in respect of the existing Premises Licence for the Shozna restaurant, 153 – 155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent ME1 1RR. 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) was served on the relevant parties for the licensed premises along with the other responsible authorities. Representations in support of the review had been received from the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement)  and a Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.

 

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

 

  • Appendix A – pages 67 to 70: A copy of the current premises licence.
  • Appendix B – page 71:  A copy of a plan showing the location of the premises.
  • Appendix C – page 73 – 80: A copy of the Application for Review.
  • Appendix D – pages 81: A copy of the supporting representation.
  • Exempt Appendix 1 – pages 85 – 92: Copy of the full version of the Review Application.

·        Exempt Appendix 2 – pages 93 and 94: Copy of representation from

the Home Office.

·        Exempt Appendix 3 – Pages 95 to 102: Submission from the Licensee’s solicitor.

 

The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer directed the Panel’s attention to the grounds for the review in relation to the licensing objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 and the steps that it may consider necessary, as set out in the agenda, to promote the licensing objectives, having regard to the review application and the relevant representations received.

 

The Chairman invited the representatives from Kent Police to present the application for a licence review.  They outlined the reasons for submitting the application and a representative of the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement)  spoke in support of it.

 

Following questioning, the Chairman invited the representative of the licence holder to respond to the review application. After further questioning, all parties were invited to sum up. The Chairman then asked all parties to leave the room during the Panel’s deliberations. They returned for the Chairman’s announcement the Panel’s decision.

 

Decision:

 

a)     In reviewing the current premises licence for Shozna, 153-155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent, ME1 1RR, the Panel considered the written and oral evidence presented at the hearing, with the exception of evidence relating to the visit to the premises by Immigration Officers in 2008, and had regard to both Medway Council’s current Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance.

 

b)  The Panel determined that the premises licence be suspended for a period of 3 months to allow the licensee to reset the business and re-evaluate his procedures to ensure that the situation discussed at the hearing did not happen again and that the licensing objectives were met.

Supporting documents: