notification of chairman and outline of procedure

The Chairman opened the meeting by introducing the Sub-Committee and the Officers present. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared

part b minutes for information

application to vary premises license under the licensing act 2003 - la pizzeria, 20 east street, sittingbourne

The Chairman drew attention to a typographical error in the report on page four, which should read September 2008, and reminded Members that planning considerations must not be taken into account. He also reminded the Sub-Committee of the licensing objectives.

Mr Aston, the Client's representative, presented the case on behalf of the agent and applicant, which sought to vary the premises licence to extend opening hours from 24:00 hours to 03:00 hours. At present, the premises closed at 23:00 to comply with a planning condition.

Mr Aston drew attention to paragraph three of the report, which explained that the Police had said that two conditions attached to the existing licence had not been properly complied with. He queried whether there was a breach, as his client had not exercised his right to extend the opening hours. The Senior Solicitor advised that this was a dispute between the proprietor and the Police.

Mr Aston advised that no objections had been raised by representative bodies and their premises were the only one in the vicinity that closed at 23:00 hours. The Senior Solicitor confirmed that other premises would have established rights.

Mr Aston reiterated that no objections had been received from representative bodies and did not see that there were any issues. He considered that it would be difficult for the adjoining resident to separate personal interest from his interest as a business owner. No evidence had been presented by the Police. He also said that whilst planning matters were not a matter for the Sub-Committee, he queried why this had been mentioned so frequently within the report. Mr Aston confirmed that the area was designated as a secondary shopping centre and that the applicant had installed CCTV cameras, a bin outside and safety radio equipment, even though he was closing at 11pm, which demonstrated that the applicant was responsible. Mr Aston advised that there were enforcement measures available should there be any problems, but reiterated that his client picked up rubbish and emptied the bin outside his premises each day, and that he was happy to offer to reduce his trading hours on a Sunday to 11pm.

The Chairman asked whether there were any questions from the objector, Mr Page. He said he had not been aware that the licence had been suspended, to which Mr Aston advised that he considered the suspension to be inappropriate and had already answered this point in his introduction.

The Chairman then invited Mr Page, an objector, to speak. Mr Page advised that he was not objecting as a business man, but purely as a resident. He was concerned at the impact the extension of hours would have on his sleep, in particular the impact of the home delivery service from cars stopping and doors being opened and shut. The area was now predominantly residential although it was designated as a secondary shopping centre.

At this point Mr Aston suggested that the point raised regarding the home delivery service had not been made in writing previously. The Senior Solicitor advised that the objector was objecting as a resident to the extension of hours for the takeaway business. The Chairman asked Mr Aston whether he wished to have some time to consider this point further, to which Mr Aston declined.

Mr Page advised that he was illustrating the potential noise disturbance from the home delivery service. In terms of foot trade, he was concerned that the premises could become a venue for groups to meet after the pubs closed, which could lead to problems. He did not have any issue with the applicant or the business, but he considered that the extension of hours would lead to a change in customers and more noise. He considered it would be fair to shut the premises at midnight.

Mr Aston was then invited to ask Mr Page questions. Mr Page confirmed that he had run the pub next door since 1978; during that time there had been occasions where the Police had been called; and that he accepted that the night time economy caused problems from time to time, but did not encourage it.

The Chairman then invited Sub-Committee Members to ask questions. A question was asked regarding the home delivery service, and how late pubs in the vicinity closed. Mr Page said that home delivery was mainly in the evening, and that he believed pubs in the vicinity closed between 1 and 2am. His pub closed at midnight.

The Chairman then invited both sides to sum up their cases.

Mr Aston reminded the Sub-Committee that each application should be considered on its own merits and that they should not make assumptions; there was no evidence to base assumptions on. Plenty of remedies were available if there were any problems. He reminded the Sub-Committee of his client's willingness to reduce opening hours on a Sunday to 11pm. He advised that there were plenty of other kebab shops in the area therefore it would be fairly quiet. The area was changing but had not been reclassified and was still a secondary shopping area. The applicant had a good relationship with his neighbour and was sure that they could discuss any issues before it became a problem. He asked the Sub-Committee to grant the application as he could not see any reason not to.

The Senior Solicitor confirmed that he would be making the Sub-Committee Members aware of recent case law (Daniel Thwaites v Wirral BC).

The Chairman asked Mr Aston whether he wished for the Sub-Committee to continue, or whether he would wish to adjourn given the comments made by the objector. Mr Aston advised he was not happy that accusations had been made. There were usually two cars, rarely three. He did not wish to adjourn the meeting.

Mr Page was then invited to sum up. He advised that he had given his opinion on what he thought would happen regarding the takeaway service. He considered it was a largely residential area and as such was sure that there would be problems if the application was granted.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 6.14pm. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager left the meeting and returned at 6.36pm, when the meeting re-convened.