To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedure for the meeting was noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2001 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2011 were received and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a variation to a Premises Licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

• Leeda Sala (applicant)
• Graham Arnold (solicitor on behalf of the applicant)
• Tom Hautot (interested party)
• Councillor Scott Naylor (supporting witness to Mr Hautot)

Mr Arnold introduced the application on behalf of his client.  He said that the applicant did not want to appear as though she was going ‘head to head’ with neighbours.  He also confirmed that the application for was for a further hour’s trading each evening.

It was reported that there had been no complaints submitted to the police or council and neither party had objected to the extended hours.   Mrs Sala stated that deliveries were commenced from the rear of the site, with around three employees carrying out this task on any given evening.  She noted that the bikes used were often noisy on start up, so Mrs Sala stated that she was willing to accept a condition which allowed deliveries by car only after 11.00pm.

In relation to concerns raised about disturbance caused by her employees smoking during breaks, Mrs Sala said that none of her staff smoked and they had signed notices confirming this.  No employee of ‘Pizza 2 Night’ reported receiving complaints from residents and it was suggested that the noise could be emanating from the Indian restaurant next door.  The applicant was however willing to offer a condition whereby she would display a notice asking people to leave the store quietly.

Mrs Sala said that the overflowing bin was not normal and attributed this to additional rubbish as a result of decorating that had recently taken place at the store.  She added that sometimes the bins might become full during bank holiday weeks due to delayed collections.  A new waste contractor had also been appointed, which doubled the number of collections to twice a week.

With regard to the allegation that an employee had damaged a resident’s car, Mrs Sala said she was not aware of this.  She stated that on this occasion, the police should have been contacted.

It was noted that the key reason for wanting to open for an additional hour was to capture late night passing trade, mostly leaving neighbouring public houses, but also late night deliveries.  Mrs Sala disputed claims that the store was open beyond 4.00am and said that sometimes it would appear to be open due to cleaning after trading.  She did accept that the police had visited the store on one occasion, where Pizza 2 Night was found to be trading after 1.00am.

Following questions from members of the sub-committee, the meeting was advised that:

• Mrs Sala had completed the application form
• The applicant was aware that trading must cease when licensable hours had concluded
• The current waste removal provision was seen to be appropriate, particularly as most waste was removed from the premises by customers ordering takeaways
• A larger bin could be used if it was found that twice weekly collections from the one already onsite was not sufficient to prevent overflow
• Some of the waste in the bin was generated by customers who ate their food at the store
• Mrs Sala was at the premises most evenings, including after closing time, and would personally address any issues being experienced by residents
• Trade picked up in the area after 11.00pm in the evening
• Staff may be on site at around 2.00am because they needed time to clean after the store had closed
• Mrs Sala would be happy to introduce more formal training for her staff, in order to ensure that they respected the surrounding neighbours
• ‘Pizza 2 Night’ employees only got paid for one hour’s work beyond the closing time, so it was not in their interest to remain onsite any longer than this
• The small ‘out house’ at the rear of the premises was constructed approximately one month ago

Mr Hautot was invited to speak to the sub-committee.  He began by assuring those present that his log was genuine.  He gave examples of times that he was woken by staff closing shutters and car doors when leaving the premises.  He added that the shop’s sign was lit up at 1.15am after trading on a Sunday, when the current licence meant they should cease trading at 11.00pm.  Mr Hautot also drew attention to photos of an overflowing bin at the site.

Councillor Naylor added that the person living above ‘Pizza 2 Night’ was unable to attend the meeting but that they, along with Mr Hautot and other residents, had made him aware of these issues around a year ago.  Councillor Naylor described the area as residential, with flats above shops and Arragon Road as being almost exclusively houses.  He added that he had personally witnessed ‘Pizza 2 Night’ trading in the early hours of the morning when he had cycled past on a few occasions.

Councillor Naylor added that he had seen discarded pizza dough on the roof of an outbuilding for several days.  He was also concerned that food was being left in the same bins as cardboard boxes, stating that this was poor practice; there were general concerns about the removal of waste from the site.

The interested party also raised the issue of the cumulative impact zone and the effect they felt the extended licence would have on this, particularly in an area with many houses.  It was believed by many residents that public nuisance would be an issue with a further late night takeaway in the area.

In response to the points raised by the interested parties, the applicant and her solicitor stated:

• That they were unaware of there being dough on the roof for a number of days
• That they felt Mr Hautot’s evidence was not reliable, as the noise he was hearing was the rear shutter after cleaning and not the front of the store, which was closed after trading.

Councillor Naylor made a closing statement on behalf of the interested parties.  He said that if the hours were extended, it would encourage loitering and related crime.  Lots of neighbours had been complaining about various issues at ‘Pizza 2 Night’ and he therefore wanted the application to be refused.  He added that the consensus amongst residents was that this application was a pre-emptive one before the council took enforcement action for operating outside of permitted hours.

Mr Arnold made a closing statement on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that the sub-committee needed to be balanced in its judgement because this was still a town centre location, which therefore meant more noise was to be expected.  It was added that many businesses did remain open past midnight and that this request was for a modest increase in trading hours.

It was also drawn to the attention of the sub-committee that a number of conditions were being offered to ease concerns held by some residents.  Mr Arnold added that it was unfair to associate the provision of late night refreshment with the issues of late alcohol sales.  He assured the committee that Mrs Sala had acknowledged the concerns of residents and would be acting to improve things for them.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the applicant did not demonstrate that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives, in this case primarily the prevention of public nuisance

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the applicant did not identify why an exception should be made in this particular case or present any exceptional circumstances to justify the departure from the cumulative impact policy.

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the grant of the application would undermine the promotion of one or more of the licensing objectives and that the imposition of conditions would be ineffective in preventing cumulative impact problems.”

[The decision notice is attached.]