Please note that the attached document is the correct version of the Premises Licence Application form (Appendix 1) submitted by Mr Mahmood, the Applicant, in relation to Chillies at Far Moor Lane, Winyates Redditch. Please refer to this version, which replaces pages 7 to 28 of the main agenda pack.
Prior to hearing the Premises License application made by Mr Sohail Mahmood (the Applicant) of Sams Properties in respect of Chillies at Far Moor Lane, Members were advised by the legal advisor, Mrs Vanessa Brown, that there was a preliminary issue for their consideration.
At the invitation of the Chair, the Applicant addressed the Sub-Committee and requested that the hearing date be postponed. The Applicant stated that the two reasons for him requesting a delay to the hearing were:-
1. To enable the outstanding fire safety works as identified by the fire authority to be completed, and thus enable the objection made by the fire authority to the premises licence be withdrawn.
2. To enable the Applicant to obtain legal representation from a solicitor.
The Members of the Sub-Committee asked the Applicant to give further details as to the outstanding works required, the likely timescale for their completion, and the reasons why he had not already complied with the requirements of the fire authority, which he had been aware of for five or six months.
In response, the Applicant asked the manager at the hotel, Ms Danielle Paton to address the committee. Ms Paton went through the list of outstanding items describing the issues to the Members. Some related to the restaurant and some to the hotel. In summary, the list included relocation of the existing fire alarm in the conference room to a central position, updating the fire risk assessment, putting stickers up to indicate the fire escape route, obtaining documentary evidence of PAT testing which had already been completed, and works to secure some loose wiring and apply flame retardant filler.
In explaining the delays to getting the works completed, the Applicant referred to the interruption to his business caused by the Covid restriction and the impact on income. He had completed that majority of the works identified by the fire authority, but these were the final steps that needed to be completed. The Applicant had already instructed some third parties to assist him with certain elements and believed that the works could be completed in about two weeks.
With regard to legal representation, the Applicant confirmed that he had instructed a local solicitor to whom he had sent all the papers. However, he had not yet been able to speak to the solicitor in person to seek advice.
After further questions, and clarification from the legal advisor that if the matter was postponed then the granting of the premises licence would be considered in full in the next occasion, the applicant stated that he would be seeking to be legally represented at the next hearing.
The Members retired to deliberate on the application to postpone the hearing, and the meeting was suspended from 2.26 pm until 3.20 pm.
On re-starting the meeting, the Chair asked the legal advisor to announce the decision of the Sub-Committee.
Members had considered the application made by Mr Mahmood for an adjournment of this matter. With regards to the request for time to comply with the fire safety concerns, members did not consider that an adjournment on this basis alone would be sufficient to prevent the application from being considered today.
However, the request for an adjournment on the basis that Mr Mahmood wished to be legally represented was something that members considered to be in the public interest. Mr Mahmood had instructed a solicitor and provided them with papers and as a matter of some complexity, members considered it to be in the public interest to allow Mr Mahmood to be represented at the next hearing.
In light of the changes in the legislative requirements for hearings due to come into effect shortly, the next hearing was likely to be face to face. The local elections would also impact on the membership of the licensing committee and as the new licensing committee members would not be appointed until the 24th May. In addition, to allow for compliance with the hearing regulations which require 5 working days notice of a hearing to be given, the first available date for the next hearing would be the 8th June.
After announcing the outcome of the meeting further clarification was given by the legal advisor that licensable activity at the premises could not take pending consideration of the application on 8th June. The Licensing Technical Officer, Paul Morrish, confirmed that he was not aware of any applications for Temporary Events Notices that had been made in relation to the premises.
Meeting closed at 3.30 pm.