Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. During the private session, the Sub-Committee having had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the guidance issued by the DCMS and the Home Office, UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that having regard to all the evidence before it, the Sub Committee found that the Premises Licence for the All in One, be revoked. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact:- 1. A licence review application has been submitted by the Home Office following the discovery of evidence that persons had been working at the premises illegally. 2. The premises licence was issued in May 2017 to Haci Ali Turkmen. 3. On 27th February 2025 enforcement officers found 1 person working illegally at the premises. A warning letter was issued. 4. On the 25th July 2025 enforcement officers found 2 people working illegally at the premises. A financial penalty was issued but has not been paid. The company that owns the business went into liquidation in November 2025. 5. On both occasions the Licence holder was present at the premises. 6. There is no evidence to show that the Licence holder took any meaningful steps to ensure illegal workers were not employed at the premises. 7. Mr Turkmen informed the Committee that he had sold the business months earlier. 8. The Statutory Guidance provide that such breaches should be treated seriously and that revocation of the premises licence should be seriously considered even on the first occasion Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the statutory guidance, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that revocation of the licence was appropriate in order to promote the licensing objectives and a proportionate response to what has happened. This is because the evidence clearly showed that the Licence holder had failed to comply with legal requirements regarding the employment of foreign workers and failed to respond appropriately to previous enforcement action by the Home Office. As such, the Committee had no faith that the premises would be run in compliance with the law and the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the guidance issued by the DCMS and the Home Office, it was: FURTHER UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence before it, that Mr Baker’s personal licence be revoked. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact:- 1. Aran Baker held a personal licence by the Council. 2. On 19/07/2024 Aran Baker was convicted of Fraud offences, which are qualifying offences under the Licensing Act. 3. Mr Baker was sentenced to 52 months in prison. 4. Mr Baker did not notify the Council of his conviction, which is an offence under section 132 of the Licensing Act 2003. 5. It was not known if Mr Baker notified the sentencing court that he was a personal licence holder as required by section 128 of the 2003 Act – Failure to do so is also a criminal offence. 6. It did not appear that the sentencing court exercised its powers under section 129 of the 2003 Act to forfeit or suspend Mr Bakers personal licence. 7. Mr Baker had not made representations to justify why his personal licence should not be suspended or revoked. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to paragraphs 4.75 to 4.80 of the statutory guidance and the overarching licensing objectives set out in the 2003 Act. The Sub-Committee noted that the offence for which Mr Baker had been convicted was serious and called into question his suitability to operate licensed premises. On the balance of probabilities, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to revoke Mr Baker’s personal licence in order to promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was further satisfied that revocation was proportionate as taking no action or suspending the licence was not considered be sufficient to promote those objectives, given the seriousness of the offences for which Mr Baker had been convicted.
There were no declarations of Personal Interest.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. During the private session, the Sub-Committee having had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the guidance issued by the DCMS and the Home Office, UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that having regard to all the evidence before it, the Sub Committee found that the Premises Licence for the All in One, be revoked. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact:- 1. A licence review application has been submitted by the Home Office following the discovery of evidence that persons had been working at the premises illegally. 2. The premises licence was issued in May 2017 to Haci Ali Turkmen. 3. On 27th February 2025 enforcement officers found 1 person working illegally at the premises. A warning letter was issued. 4. On the 25th July 2025 enforcement officers found 2 people working illegally at the premises. A financial penalty was issued but has not been paid. The company that owns the business went into liquidation in November 2025. 5. On both occasions the Licence holder was present at the premises. 6. There is no evidence to show that the Licence holder took any meaningful steps to ensure illegal workers were not employed at the premises. 7. Mr Turkmen informed the Committee that he had sold the business months earlier. 8. The Statutory Guidance provide that such breaches should be treated seriously and that revocation of the premises licence should be seriously considered even on the first occasion Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the statutory guidance, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that revocation of the licence was appropriate in order to promote the licensing objectives and a proportionate response to what has happened. This is because the evidence clearly showed that the Licence holder had failed to comply with legal requirements regarding the employment of foreign workers and failed to respond appropriately to previous enforcement action by the Home Office. As such, the Committee had no faith that the premises would be run in compliance with the law and the licensing objectives.
The Legal Services Manager briefed all present on the procedure for the hearing which had been convened to consider an application received from the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team for the review of a premises licence in respect of All In One, 34 Murray Street, Llanelli SA15 1DJ. They had grounds to believe that the licence holder had failed to meet the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, as illegal working had been identified at this premises. The Sub Committee noted the following documentation was attached to the report:- Appendix A – Copy of the review application; Appendix B – Supplementary document pack; Appendix C - Written representation. The Home Office Representative referred to the written representations, as detailed within Appendices A and B to the report, and outlined to the Sub Committee the events which had led to the submission of the review application. It was reported that the premises was first visited by Wales and West of England Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) team on 27 February 2025 and entry was gained using Section 179 Licensing Act 2003. They encountered one individual at the premises, who did not hold the right to work in the UK. As a result, a warning letter was served to the premises licence holder on 19 August 2025. On 25 July 2025, the ICE team visited All In One Takeaway again after receiving further intelligence. Entry was gained to the premises using Section 179 Licensing Act 2003 whereby officers encountered four individuals, two of which were illegally working. Both individuals were working in breach of their conditions and were arrested. The Sub-Committee was advised that a civil penalty of £80,000 remained unpaid and outstanding in full. In view of the findings, the Home Office Representative deemed revocation of the licence to be appropriate and proportionate as the licence and related licensable activity was deemed to be prejudicial to the prevention of immigration crime including illegal working. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Home Office Representative on the submission. Mr H.A. Turkmen, the licence holder for the All in One, in response to the representations received, explained to the Sub-Committee that whilst he had conducted some employer checks in respect of working rights it had later become apparent that he had not conducted all relevant checks as the employer/responsible officer. Mr H.A. Turkmen advised the Sub-Committee that he had sold the business some months earlier on the basis of the current operating hours. Mr H.A. Turkmen emphasised that he did not want the premises licence to be revoked, and he was no longer responsible for the day-to-day management of the business. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning Mr Turkmen, the premises license holder. The Sub-Committee thereupon UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. During the private session, the Sub-Committee having had regard to relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the guidance issued by the DCMS and the Home Office, UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that having regard to all the evidence before it, the Sub Committee found that the Premises Licence for the All in One, be revoked. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact:- 1. A licence review application has been submitted by the Home Office following the discovery of evidence that persons had been working at the premises illegally. 2. The premises licence was issued in May 2017 to Haci Ali Turkmen. 3. On 27th February 2025 enforcement officers found 1 person working illegally at the premises. A warning letter was issued. 4. On the 25th July 2025 enforcement officers found 2 people working illegally at the premises. A financial penalty was issued but has not been paid. The company that owns the business went into liquidation in November 2025. 5. On both occasions the Licence holder was present at the premises. 6. There is no evidence to show that the Licence holder took any meaningful steps to ensure illegal workers were not employed at the premises. 7. Mr Turkmen informed the Committee that he had sold the business months earlier. 8. The Statutory Guidance provide that such breaches should be treated seriously and that revocation of the premises licence should be seriously considered even on the first occasion Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the statutory guidance, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that revocation of the licence was appropriate in order to promote the licensing objectives and a proportionate response to what has happened. This is because the evidence clearly showed that the Licence holder had failed to comply with legal requirements regarding the employment of foreign workers and failed to respond appropriately to previous enforcement action by the Home Office. As such, the Committee had no faith that the premises would be run in compliance with the law and the licensing objectives.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the guidance issued by the DCMS and the Home Office, it was: FURTHER UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence before it, that Mr Baker’s personal licence be revoked. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact:- 1. Aran Baker held a personal licence by the Council. 2. On 19/07/2024 Aran Baker was convicted of Fraud offences, which are qualifying offences under the Licensing Act. 3. Mr Baker was sentenced to 52 months in prison. 4. Mr Baker did not notify the Council of his conviction, which is an offence under section 132 of the Licensing Act 2003. 5. It was not known if Mr Baker notified the sentencing court that he was a personal licence holder as required by section 128 of the 2003 Act – Failure to do so is also a criminal offence. 6. It did not appear that the sentencing court exercised its powers under section 129 of the 2003 Act to forfeit or suspend Mr Bakers personal licence. 7. Mr Baker had not made representations to justify why his personal licence should not be suspended or revoked. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to paragraphs 4.75 to 4.80 of the statutory guidance and the overarching licensing objectives set out in the 2003 Act. The Sub-Committee noted that the offence for which Mr Baker had been convicted was serious and called into question his suitability to operate licensed premises. On the balance of probabilities, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to revoke Mr Baker’s personal licence in order to promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was further satisfied that revocation was proportionate as taking no action or suspending the licence was not considered be sufficient to promote those objectives, given the seriousness of the offences for which Mr Baker had been convicted.
The Sub-Committee was appraised of the procedure for the hearing, which had been convened to consider the Personal Licence held by Mr Aran Baker for the sale of alcohol. The Licensing Lead informed the Sub-Committee that in December 2024 the Licensing division had become aware via a news report, and subsequently by Trading Standards, that Mr Baker had been convicted of a relevant offence as listed in schedule 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 which required consideration by the Sub-Committee in respect of Mr Baker’s personal licence. The Sub-Committee was advised that on 19 July 2024 Mr Baker had pleaded guilty to participating in a fraudulent business contrary section 9 of the Fraud Act 2006. On 15 December 2024, Mr Baker was sentenced to 52 months in prison for the offence which related to the sale of illicit tobacco. Repeated attempts had been made to contact Mr Baker whilst he was serving his custodial sentence and thereafter, however no response had been received. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning regarding the representations made. The Licensing Lead recommended that consideration be given to suspend or revoke Mr Jones’ personal licence. The Sub-Committee thereupon: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the guidance issued by the DCMS and the Home Office, it was: FURTHER UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence before it, that Mr Baker’s personal licence be revoked. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact:- 1. Aran Baker held a personal licence by the Council. 2. On 19/07/2024 Aran Baker was convicted of Fraud offences, which are qualifying offences under the Licensing Act. 3. Mr Baker was sentenced to 52 months in prison. 4. Mr Baker did not notify the Council of his conviction, which is an offence under section 132 of the Licensing Act 2003. 5. It was not known if Mr Baker notified the sentencing court that he was a personal licence holder as required by section 128 of the 2003 Act – Failure to do so is also a criminal offence. 6. It did not appear that the sentencing court exercised its powers under section 129 of the 2003 Act to forfeit or suspend Mr Bakers personal licence. 7. Mr Baker had not made representations to justify why his personal licence should not be suspended or revoked. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had regard to paragraphs 4.75 to 4.80 of the statutory guidance and the overarching licensing objectives set out in the 2003 Act. The Sub-Committee noted that the offence for which Mr Baker had been convicted was serious and called into question his suitability to operate licensed premises. On the balance of probabilities, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to revoke Mr Baker’s personal licence in order to promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was further satisfied that revocation was proportionate as taking no action or suspending the licence was not considered be sufficient to promote those objectives, given the seriousness of the offences for which Mr Baker had been convicted.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.