To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedures for the hearings were noted.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To hear and determine an opposed application for a variation of a premises licence.

Present for this item were:

Mr Sameh Abourezk - The Applicant

Mr Peter Willan – The Interested Party

Mr Abourezk made the following representation: He wished to extend the opening hours to provide late night refreshments from 11:59pm to 1:59am on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. His business was loosing money as there was not enough trade during his current opening hours. The premises would be most profitable during the proposed extended hours when customers from closing pubs and bars in Richmond would want food. He didn’t think that granting the extension would create antisocial behaviour. In addition, his staff were capable of calming rowdy customers.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee and Interested Party, Mr Abourezk explained that the extended opening hours would help meet the demand for food at this time of night.

The premises could accommodate five to six customers at any one time and did not have the facilities for customers to sit down and eat.

Blaze sold fried chicken for takeaway and pizza for home delivery. The fried chicken was served in cardboard boxes. His staff regularly cleaned the pavement in front of the shop and the premises on either side. He did not think that granting the extension to the licence would cause a litter problem.

Many of Blaze’s customers lived locally. Customers who lived further away could use night buses or cabs to get home.  

Mr Willan made the following representation: He felt the emphasis should be on the applicant to prove that the extended opening hours would not negatively impact on the four licensing objectives. In his opinion extending the hours would encourage more people to stay in Richmond for longer after leaving the pubs and bars. This would lead to noise and nuisance. There were already several takeaways open late in the same area. He reminded the Sub-Committee that other premises in Richmond had been refused extensions to their licensed hours for trade in the past. Mr Willan did not think that the night bus was sufficient transport for customers late at night.

He urged the Sub-Committee to reject the application as there was no evidence from the applicant that granting the licence extension would not have a negative impact upon the four licensing objectives.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr Willan said at the Richmond Society and Friends of Richmond Green Annual General Meetings it was agreed that antisocial behaviour was still a problem in the town centre. 

Mr Abourezk and Mr Willan did not make closing statements.

The Sub-Committee retired to consider the evidence given.

RESOLVED that the application be granted for the following reasons:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, its Regulations, Section 182 Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and guidance provided by relevant case law. 

It was noted that there was a condition on the Premises Licence requiring notices to be displayed to ask customers attending the premises to leave quietly and not to disturb local residents on leaving the premises.

The Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) applied to this premises as it was located within the Richmond Town Centre CIP area.  The Cumulative Impact Policy arising from paragraph 4 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, creates a rebuttable presumption that all opposed applications within the CIP will be refused, unless the Licensing Sub-Committee consider they are justified from departing from the CIP, where the application is unlikely to add to cumulative impact.  The Licensing Sub-Committee considered that the changes proposed would not affect the cumulative impact and accordingly the Licensing Sub-Committee decided to depart from its special policy. This premises was a very small premises that could only fit 5-6 persons within it when ordering food, there was no Police Representation outstanding, there was no evidence of crime and disorder or public nuisance arising from the premises, the area was not a wholly residential area and the people using the premises would be people in this area already or people leaving the area to return home with food or who were at home to await deliveries.”

(Full details of the decision are included in the decision letter attached.)