Agenda and decisions

Date of hearing

12 December 2019

Members of  Sub-Committee

Councillor Jonathan Noble

Councillor  Alison Austin

Councillor  Stephen Woodliffe

Applicant(s) Name

Mrs Nawal Ahmd

Premises Address

 European Food, 43 Wide Bargate, Boston

Represented by

Mr Shackleston

Date Application Received

6 November 2019

Details of Application

Application for variation of a Premises Licence to specify an individual as the Designated Premises Supervisor under the Licensing Act 2003.

The Parties:

Mrs Ahmd, has applied for variation of the Licence to specify Mr Hatemi as the Designated Premises Supervisor at European Food, 43 Wide Bargate, Boston

The Chief Officer of Police has given notice that he is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case is such that granting the variation of Designated Premises Supervisor would undermine the  prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

Policy and Guidance:

In reaching its decision, the sub-committee has considered the statutory guidance issued under S182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Boston Borough Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

Licensing Objectives:

The sub-committee has found that the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder is relevant to this application. 

Decision: 

The sub-committee has decided to reject the application to vary the premises licence to specify an individual as Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS).   

Reasons:  The reasons for the sub-committee reaching this decision are as follows:

The sub-committee has read and heard all of the information before them.  The sub-committee heard from the Licensing & Land Charges Manager, Lincolnshire Police, and Mr Shackleston on behalf of the applicant and proposed Designated Premises Supervisor.

The sub-committee is aware of and has taken into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998.

The sub-committee in reaching its decision has had due regard for its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and consider that in reaching their decision they have fulfilled their duty under the Equality Act 2010.

At the beginning of the hearing, the police made an application under regulation 14 of the Licensing Action 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, to exclude the public and press (including the applicant, the proposed DPS, and their representative) from a part of the hearing as they had specific confidential information pursuant to the proposed DPS to present to the sub-committee that could not be made public. The police made a case that whilst they appreciate and acknowledge the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, in this instance the public benefit outweighed that right.

In response Mr Shackleston reiterated his client’s right to fair hearing, and stressed he hoped the information was not generic, but specific and evidence based.

The sub-committee deliberated in private, and resolved that since the information was specific to the proposed DPS that they agreed with the police that in this instance the public benefit to excluding the public and press outweighed the applicant’s right to a fair hearing. The sub-committee granted the  ...  view the full decision text for item 1.