Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report for an application for a new premises licence for Amigo Grill, 27 Narborough Road, Leicester.

Councillor Pickering, as Chair led on introductions and outlined the procedure the hearing would follow.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report on an application for a new premises licence for Amigo Grill, 27 Narborough Road, Leicester.

The applicant Ms Haleema Khatoon Khan and Mr Andy Pattni, the manager of the premises, were in attendance. Also in attendance was PC Jefferson Pritchard, Leicestershire Police. Also present were the Team Manager (Regulatory Services) and the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee. Jubayda Rahman and Lynsay Coupe from the Licensing Team were present as observers.

The Team Manager (Regulatory Services) presented the report and outlined details of the application.

A representation was received on 17 November 2025 from the Police. The representation related to the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The representee was concerned that the premises is located within an area of special interest as referred to in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The applicant did not refer to this policy and the application was very vague and lacked any mitigating measures to promote the licensing objectives.

A second representation was received on 9 December 2025 from the Noise team. The representation related to the prevention of public nuisance. The representee was concerned that the late hours requested would increase noise from the ventilation at the premises, delivery vehicles and people noise which may impact the nearby residents. They have been in contact with the applicant and have agreed conditions.

PC Pritchard, Police Constable for Leicestershire Police, was given the opportunity to outline the details of their representation and answered questions from Members.

Mr Pattni, on behalf of the applicant, was given the opportunity to address the Sub-Committee and answered questions from the Members.

All parties present were then given the opportunity to sum up their positions and make any final comments.

The Sub-Committee received legal advice from the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee in the presence of all those present and were advised of the options available to them in making their decision. The Sub-Committee were also advised of the relevant policy and statutory guidance that needed to be taken into account when making their decision.

In reaching their decision, Members felt they should deliberate in private on the basis that this was in the public interest, and as such outweighed the public interest of their deliberation taking place with the parties represented present, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

The Chair announced that the decision and reasons would be announced in writing within five working days. The Chair informed the meeting that the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee would be called back to give advice on the wording of the decision.

The Sub-Committee recalled the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee to give advice on the wording of the decision.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee’s decision is that it is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to REFUSE the application.

REASONS

The Sub-Committee determine that the failure of the applicant to address the Statement of Licensing Policy in relation to the premises being in an area of special and the failure of the applicant to set out in detail what steps would be taken to promote each of the 4 licensing objectives was fatal to the application. The Sub-Committee did not consider that the applicant had put forward sufficient information in the application for it to have confidence in the applicant’s ability to promote the licensing objectives and manage premises which proposed to open until 5am in a challenging environment.

The Sub-Committee did have due regard to the need to promote growth and deliver economics benefits and did consider whether the application could be granted subject to conditions. However, the committee decided that it was inappropriate for it to impose conditions when consultations between responsible authorities and the applicant had not taken place and neither party had been given an opportunity to make representations on the enforceability of any conditions and whether any conditions set by committee would proportionate, justifiable and capable of being met.

The Sub-Committee believed that applicant to be a responsible person and encouraged her to consult with the Police and other responsible authorities and make a further application complying with the applicable legislation, statutory guidance and the Council’s statement of licensing policy.

Any appeal against the decision must be made within 21 days to the Magistrates Court.