Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence. The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration. However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office. Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life. Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence. Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
There were none.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence. The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration. However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office. Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life. Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence. Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
Present Applicant: Nishan Maan James Singh Responsible Authorities: PC Jason Jones (South Wales Police) Application An application for the grant of a Personal Licence had been received from Nishan Maan James Singh. The applicant had advised that he did not hold, nor had he applied to any other authority for, a Personal Licence. He had produced all the documents required by the Licensing Act 2003. The criminal record check produced by the applicant disclosed information regarding a conviction history. South Wales Police had been consulted on the application and advised that in view of the conviction history they objected to a Personal Licence being granted. Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, Mr Singh explained that he had applied for a Personal Licence because he and his wife had been offered an opportunity to enter the hospitality industry. He felt it was a good opportunity to get back into full-time employment and give back to the community through providing events, activities and employment. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he understood it had been a mistake to tick no on the question about previous convictions, and apologised for this. He had gone over his form with someone at County Hall and they had not flagged any issues. Members asked why he had refused to give a sample to the police when asked. Mr Singh explained that after a long day working away, when the policeman came up to him, he had panicked. He sometimes had a breathing issue, which he’d had since Covid, which made this worse. Looking back, it was a huge mistake, and he had tried to make things better since then by working with the community. Responsible Authority Representations Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, PC Jason Jones explained that the police’s objection was due to the applicant’s recent unspent conviction for failing to provide a specimen. Although the offence did not specifically fall within Schedule 4 of the Licensing Act, it was relevant to the applicant’s conduct and compliance with legal obligations. He explained that the incident had occurred when a police officer had spotted a vehicle going the wrong way down a one-way street, and approached the vehicle when parked and spoke to the driver. The driver said he had walked there, which the officer knew wasn’t the case, and he had then refused to provide a specimen when asked. PC Jones added that since then, the applicant had failed to declare the conviction on his application form. In the police’s view, granting a Personal Licence would not comply with the licensing objectives. The applicant was currently disqualified and on a community order which was due to expire shortly, meaning that his conviction was unspent at this time. Summing Up Summing up, PC Jones reiterated that South Wales Police’s objection was based on the applicant’s unspent conviction for failing to provide a specimen. He emphasised that this was a prolonged incident where the applicant had failed to comply with a legal obligation both at the roadside and at the station. The police had concerns over both the alcohol-related offence and the way he had reacted to it. Summing up, the applicant acknowledged the police’s concerns and emphasised that he had learnt a lot following his conviction. The opportunity he had now would really help to move him and his family forward, and help him to help the community. He was genuinely sorry for what had happened and had learned a lot from the experience. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence. The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration. However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office. Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life. Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence. Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
There were none.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.