Issue - meetings

Report of the Director of Communities

The Director of Communities submitted a report for the General Licensing Sub-Committee to determine whether a licence should be granted, as the applicant is currently subject to ongoing criminal court proceedings and has been charged with offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Fraud Act 2006, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

The Applicant and her representative (who is her mother) were present at the Sub-Committee.

The Public Protection Team Leader outlined the report, requesting members to refer to the details contained within the report and to give due consideration to all information put before them when deciding if the applicant should be given a licence.

Members were informed that on 27 April 2021, a solicitor instructed on behalf of Animal Protection Services, a registered charity, contacted Chorley Borough Council to enquire regarding an application for a dog day care licence in the applicant’s name. At this time, no application had yet been received.

However, the applicant had been in email correspondence to make arrangements for a premise’s inspection. As the application and fees had not yet been submitted no inspection was arranged.

The applicant was made aware at the time of application that the Council had been provided with the prosecution information, and this would be taken into consideration when a decision was made. In response, the applicant asked if somebody else could obtain the licence in their name.

Following submission of the application, a qualified vet surgeon was employed to inspect the premises on behalf of the Council. The site passed inspection with minor failings and with the recommendation that, should a licence be approved a local authority officer should check prior to opening that all equipment was in place and working effectively.

The Public Protection Team Leader advised members that it was initially understood that a director decision could be taken to approve the grant of a licence, however, after further legal guidance the applicant was told the licence would not be approved, but a report would be submitted to the General Licensing Sub-Committee for a decision. The applicant was in receipt of this information.

The applicant told members that she was a dog lover and only sought to help dogs in need. It was her view that she did the right thing and anybody else in her position would have done the same. The applicant explained to the panel that she had contacted Animal Protection Services herself when she had discovered the ongoing investigation.

The applicant advised that she had sold three full litters and individual dogs in between litters. These dogs were purchased from puppy farms, looked after by the applicant and then rehomed. The applicant explained that she sold the dogs for a similar price to what she had originally paid and did not make a profit. The applicant explained to the Panel that the charges had nothing to do with the day care and not one single puppy farm she had reported had been prosecuted.

Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53