Content

In reaching its decision, the Licensing Sub-Committee
(“LSC”) considered the Council’s Statementof
LicensingPolicy, theLicensing Act2003, theRegulations made
thereunder, and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under
S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions, the LSC did so
with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of theprevention
of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public
nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
 

Having considered all written representations, evidence, and oral
submissions, the LSC resolved not to grant a premises licence.
 
 
Basis of Decision
 

The LSC received submissions from the Applicant’s
representative and gave due weight to the submissions including the
documents submitted late for the hearing. In particular, the LSC
noted the submissions regarding other traders objecting to the
application and hours for sale of alcohol for those premises. The
LSC noted the petition signed by those supportingthe
application,and thecharacter referencefrom thepostmaster, andgave
itlow weight regarding the 4 licensing objectives. The LSC noted
the conditions offered by the Applicant subject to which a premises
licence could be granted. The LSC further noted the submission that
the police had not objected to Akmal Hussain, the sole director of
the Applicant company holding a Personal Licence. The LSC noted the
submissions for the Applicant regarding whowas the Premises licence
holder, DPS, and manager of the business at 22 Charlton Church
Lane, and that Akmal Hussain was simply an employee of the business
and had not managerial control.
 

In reaching its decision the LSC were fully aware that the premises
are not located within a Cumulative Impact Area.
 

The LSC gave proper and due weight to the representation and
submissions from Trading Standards. Trading Standards had untaken
test purchases for underage sales in the vicinity having received
complaints of sales to children. Of the 4 underage test purchases
conducted in Charlton Church Lane in January 2024, the only failed
underage sale was at 22 Charlton Church Lane where Akmal Hussain
was working.The LSC noted the submission that the
applicant’srepresentative, MrCrossman, wasalso
therepresentative forthe business operator at 22 Charlton
Church Lane, a Mr Younus, and whether Akmal Hussain was running
that business on a daily basis.
 

The LSC having received submissions from residents including those
operating businesses and selling alcohol in the vicinity, and
having heard directly from Akmal Hussain, were satisfied that he
was working in the premises undertaking 2 daily shifts of 4 hours,
the first starting at 6am, from Monday to Saturday. The LSC were
satisfied that the business owner and licence holder of 22 Charlton
Church Lane was not present in the premises on a daily basis and
that it was Akmal Hussain in de facto running the premises. Akmal
Hussain himself stated he was responsible when he was working at 22
Charlton Church Lane. The LSCwere satisfied that the submissions
from those operating businesses in Charlton Church Lane directly
and genuinely related to protection of children from harm, and
prevention of crime. There was clear evidence of underage sales of
vapes and tobacco related products being sold to children at 22
Charlton Church Lane and Akmal Hussain’s complicity in those
underagesales. Moreover,there was evidenceregarding underagesales
ofvapes tochildren and the advertising of significantly discounted
vapes, from and outside the premises at 10 - 12 Charlton Church
Lane, where Akmal Hussain has been recently running his
business.
 

The LSC were satisfied that to grant the premises licence would not
promote the licensing objectives and specifically protection of
children from harm and prevention of crime.
 
Anyparty aggrievedby this
decision mayappeal tothe magistrates’ courtwithin 21
days.