Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 12 February 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Licensing Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 12th February 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Thank you and the meeting is now live.
Hello everyone and welcome to this licensing subcommittee of the 12th of February.
So the first item that we need to go through is the appointment of the chair because the actual chair can't be present this evening.
So it's proposed that Councillor French chairs this meeting and I'd like to ask the subcommittee if they're happy with that.
Yes, all good with me?
Yep, happy.
Excellent.
Okay.
So before we move on to the actual item itself, I did circulate earlier on a late submission
from the applicant to do with the refuse waste collection services.
I just want to check if we have everyone's agreement to include that as part of the applications,
part of the hearing? Yes. Is that okay? Yes. Yeah, happy with me. Okay, brilliant. Okay, so Chair, when you're
ready, over to you. Sorry, Rebecca. Sorry, Guy. Miss Yeldon, I think, has something to say. Sorry, Miss Yeldon.
No, not to worry. I did have a quick question about it in my response email, was is this relevant
to planning or was it relevant to licensing because I think previously
when we submitted our response we were under understanding it was a planning
decision not a licensing decision and therefore was it appropriate to discuss
in this meeting. Sure so I'm sure Miss Hopkins will correct me if I'm wrong but
I think that's gonna be picked up as part of Miss Hopkins introduction to the
application. Perfect thank you very much. No worries so chair whenever you're
over to you. Thank you. Good evening everyone, welcome to this meeting of the Licensing
Subcommittee which is being held as a remote meeting. The meeting is being webcast and
please bear with us if there are any technical issues. My name is Councillor French and I'm
chairing this meeting. I will now invite other attendees to introduce themselves in the following
order. Councillors, officers, applicant, representations. Thank you. Councillor Wallace, do you want
Hello I'm Sean Alders, Councillor for Tooting Broadway. Hello I'm Ethan Brooks,
Councillor for Thamesfield Ward in Putney. Yes hello I'm Guy Bishop, Solicitor for South
London Legal Partnership, part of the Shared Legal Service and I'm the Legal
Advisor to the subcommittee for tonight's hearing. My name is Julie
Hopkins and I am the lead licensing officer. I am Becky Hickey I am a
Democratic Services Officer and Clerk for this hearing. And my name is Michael
Flowers, Democratic Service Officer acting as the webcaster for this meeting
and supporting officer for Democratic Services. Thank you officers over to the
applicant. My name is Mohammed Malik and I'm the agent acting on behalf of the
Thank you. Over to representations, please.
Hi, Belinda Gelden, one of the representations and Thomas Southwell, also resident.
Thank you both.
Hi, I'm Councillor Anna -Marie Critchard. I'm making representations as well and I am one of the local councillors who represent residents in the ward in which the application is at the moment.
which is Tooting Beck Ward. Thank you. So going ahead with the meeting agenda items one and two.
Are there any apologies for absence or declarations of interest for any items on the agenda?
Okay, no thank you. Moving swiftly on. We will now consider the application for a new premises
license in respect of the premises known as Scott Capare 26A to 26B Upper Tooting Road,
London, SW 17 7 PG. And I now invite the licensing officer, Ms. Hopkins, to introduce the application.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. This is an application
for a new late night refreshment license. Tooting, Karahi and Company Ltd applied for
a new premises license for the premises known as Butt Karahi at 26A to 26B Upper Tooting
Road, SW 17 7 PG. The applicant has applied for late night refreshment for
takeaway only between the hours of 11 p .m. and 2 a .m. Monday to Sundays with
opening times of 8 a .m. to 2 p .m. Monday to Sundays. The hours sought are within
the council statement of licensing policy guideline hours for late night
refreshment premises within Wandsworth. The application was advertised as required
under the legislation and this has resulted in the receipt of two
representations from other persons. No representations were received from any of the other responsible
authorities. However, the council's planning team did submit comments on the application
with regards to planning. As per the committee report, planning and license are separate
regimes, so both have different objectives, so must be decided separately. However, since
the publication of the report, the applicant submitted an email today to both licensing
and democratic services teams confirming that a formal application has now been submitted to the
planning team for a change of use to Class E restaurant. The applicant has also confirmed
that they now have a refuse collection contract who will collect their refuse from inside the
premises daily with no refuse being kept outside the premises. And the applicant has actually
requested this be noted in the minutes. The other representations are, the other person's
representations are therefore the only matters for consideration tonight. The
question that Ms Yeilden asked about whether this is a planning or a
licensing issue with regards to refuse, it would come under public nuisance which is
one of the four licensing objectives so it is relevant to the licensing act and
we have had many licenses with conditions regarding to refuse so I
that clears up that query. Councillors I have no further matters to raise in
respect to the application but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Thank you Ms Hopkins. Does the subcommittee have any questions
for the Licensing Officer? Councillor Brooks. Thank you
Councillor French. Thank you for that initial introduction. In the
from the planning team, they said that this would require change of use through
planning but I'm given to believe the business is already open and operating.
Is that normal to begin operation before you've got the change of
use in place? It does happen. In an ideal world they would apply for planning
first and then apply for licensing. They're two separate legislations as we've previously
discussed. They have now retrospectively put in an application for a change of use,
but until if the license was granted tonight, they would still need to adhere to any planning
restrictions. I don't know if Guy would like to add anything else on that?
I was going to let Mr Malik speak first before I say anything because I suspect he's got
something to say about that.
Yes, hello.
Mr Malik.
Hi, just on to Mr Brooke's question about opening without planning.
So what it was originally before my client took on the business, it was two premises.
One of the takeaway and there was a betting shop.
So when my client took on the business, he thought since it was a takeaway, he's already
operating with a food business.
So he had the assumption that we could continue operating as a food business, but he wasn't
aware of the planning change of use policies around change of use.
So he thought, from his understanding, it's a food business already and we're just hoping
another food business.
So that's why he continued, but obviously enforcement got involved, told him no, look,
that was too generous takeaway, and that's a too generous betting shop, and you need
to change your views to Class C restaurant.
So that's where the retrospective application has gone in.
In terms of the canopy and the extraction, that's all existing from the existing takeaway.
So all they've done is just internal fit out refurbishment.
Everything else has been kept the same.
So the application is in at the moment, which reflects a change of use, just a material
change of use, and which also highlights the refuse collection issues as well, which has
been addressing the planning.
And as Mrs. Hopkins has said, I've also included the documentations with this application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Manick.
Mr. Bishop.
Yes, Councillor.
It's very simple.
Matters of planning are matters for the planning authority.
Matters under the licensing act are literally to look at the licensing objectives
and those sort of issues.
Hopefully the planning issues will be addressed and that will be something
for that side of the things, not for this committee necessarily to consider.
Sure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions for our licensing officer, Ms Hopkins?
Are there any other questions or clarifications on anything that's been stated?
As a reminder, both the applicant and representations will have a chance to address the subcommittee,
and this should only be where you'd like qualifications or something stated by the speaker.
Ms Yellund, I see your hand written, please.
The question or response, it's in our wider response, but you stated and I think you
stated in the letter that a notice was put on the establishment during the pot
period. We have significant evidence that indicates that that was not the case and
I wonder if the council have anything that demonstrates that that was adhered to?
Yes we do, we have photographic evidence that the notice was up.
Are you able to provide that to us because I think the evidence that we took during the
early weeks of January indicates that that wasn't the case.
I'm not sure that we can provide that can we Guy?
The officers do check it.
I think the point, sorry Councillor, the point here is that it's down to the officers to
check that the statutory notices are in place.
The officers have checked that and they are content that they have been in place. Otherwise, we wouldn't be at this meeting.
Okay, we'll address that in our further follow -up, I think.
Thank you. Okay.
I now invite the applicant
to address the subcommittee and you will have five minutes to speak after which questions may be asked of you.
Mr. Malik, over to you.
Thank you very much. So just going back on obviously we kind of highlighted the main
issues and looking at the comments made by Ms. Yalden and Councillor Critchard. The main
issue they're coming across with is the nuisance and obviously refuse and parking and all that
kind of stuff but from my experience and all the applications we've done these are the
common kind of objections we get all the time but my question to every all the councillors
and the committee members always is do these relate to our client's business because sometimes
these issues can be caused by other businesses but then our client or our
clients business suffers the consequences yes we put our hand up to
the refuse issue and like I said we've resolved that obviously the client was
not informed well by Biff at the collection company they said that oh we
we work with the council and you can put your bins outside so he obviously
didn't know much so he put him outside but he's had to pay the consequences of
that paid the fines but now he's got two companies employed to do the refuse
collection to two because we just in case one doesn't turn up he's also got a
backup so he's happy he spent the money he's got the collections are literally
collections that in every day twice a day morning and evening so obviously the
refuse side is being resolved and secondly in terms of nuisance and people
congregating outside I must point out this is a restaurant and people
obviously go in they're gonna be seated at the table and they're gonna be
spending at least an hour hour and a half eating so it's not like a takeaway
you go when you take your food outside and you stand outside and eat or see it
on the street or just eat in your car so this is something that people will come
they park their car sensibly appropriately and then go inside with
their family eat spend at least an hour inside and then leave so it's not
something that we go in and out quickly so that will obviously that eliminates
the nuisance kind of issue because like I said you're going in you're sitting
down you're eating and other comments were I think those are the main ones I
raised really but yeah like I said if there are issues caused by other
businesses I would like to just people to just like to point out that you should
make a decision based on if all those problems are coming from my clients
business rather than from other people's businesses we are being the blame for
them like you said miss Hopkins that none of the police or any of the
authorities are made in objections which clearly shows that our business is not
causing any problems if there were any objection from police or familiar the
departments then obviously we could say okay we'll action them appropriately but
like I said there has been a thing from anyone obviously planning a rate on
objection we will address that. Refuse the problem we will address that. Any other
issues we will be happy to work with the council so if there are any problems or
any issues further down the line or at this moment in time we are happy to
address that my client will take all the appropriate actions needed. Thank you.
I think you're on mute, Katrina. Still on mute.
Oh, gosh, I think I'm being partied, not heavy handed. I'm already pressing that, I was not
working, apologies for that. Thank you, Mr. Anakin, thank you, councillors for noting
that. Does anyone have any questions from the subcommittee for the applicant at the
moment? Thank you, Councillor Lawless.
Thank you for that, Miss Manick. Can I ask a question around the comment you made there
around people will be sitting indoors. So the application to open till 2am is for takeaways
only, I understand. So what would the policy be around that? And in terms of dispersal
and making sure that people are leaving or arriving in a manner that's not causing a
nuisance. Can you talk to us about your plans around that please? The proposal I
think ideally was supposed to be for eating anyway so I think the idea may be
because I think the client or someone who got the submitted application at
that time but put it on take it but the intention is for eating only and in terms
of dispersing and make sure people leave quietly and appropriately. Obviously
member staff will be standing outside if the shop is too busy they'll obviously be
told to leave or they'll be told to wait inside rather than standing outside on the
leave obviously people the staff will make sure that obviously no people are
not talking outside on the streets too late at night and just make sure
they leave straight to the car and go home rather than hang around the
building outside. Sorry just for clarification Councillor the
application is for both indoors and outdoors so effectively it would be
sitting eating but also it could be takeaways but if the applicant is
explaining Mr. Malik if you're explaining that you're changing it to just indoors
then just cut if you can clarify that that'd be helpful yes it would be just
indoors eating yes so just for my understanding that means if I come in at
12 o 'clock I won't be able to have a takeaway well under actually another
class II restaurant you allowed to set up a century of takeaway so obviously
the main it'll be just like a little bit takeaway but the main intention is to
eat in only I know what the main intention is but I'm just a bit confused
would that mean councilor Lawless said that he was under the impression that
was take away only then mr. Bishop said that actually the application allows for
both was my understanding people could take away and people could eat in you
had before mr. Malley sorry yeah take away yeah that they would be just eating
in so just for clarity if what is the position that you intend to put forward
today that people would be able to take away between that the hours of is 11 and
who have seen the application or are you saying there will not be take away between hours of 11 and 2?
It would probably be 10 % take away and about 90 % get in here.
Right, so there would be take away and you do collections as well?
Yes, collections as well, yeah.
The collections, somebody coming in, collecting and taking home or deliveries by moped or what
it may be from the premises to a residential property as well as sit -in.
Yes. So all three, okay fine. Thank you for that clarity.
Councillor Brooks, I saw your hand up it's gone down. I don't know if that was a legacy.
No, I think it got covered just then. Thank you. Okay then any other questions
councillors on the subcommittee for the applicant at this moment? No, I had the
question the same as councillor Wallace but I think that's been clarified now.
Sorry, I'm just going to my notes.
So any other questions or clarification
that has to be stated at this moment?
As a reminder, the representations will have a chance
to address the committee,
and this should only be where you would like clarification
on something that has been stated by the speaker.
I will now invite those making representations
to address the subcommittee,
and you will have five minutes to speak
after which questions may be asked to you.
I'll start with Miss Yelden and the young man with her over to you both and then I'll
come to your council.
Perfect, thank you very much.
We have a couple of things that we would like to say.
I think there's three things before we get into the detail of the application that we
would like to raise at this stage.
I think first and foremost is the inadequacy of the application really to have any meaningful
detail.
In terms of public safety, there's no detail on things like risk assessment, security measures.
capacity management, so that's quite challenging for residents to be able to comment on that properly.
I think same with the public nuisance. There's nothing on customer dispersal, there's nothing on vehicle management,
foul control, litter management, staff training, risk of vermin, monitoring procedures.
The protection from children section is entirely blank.
I think what's concerning about that is the fact that it's really hard to know if they understand for establishment
their responsibilities under the Licensing Act. It's hard to know if they have the necessary
procedures in place and can effectively manage a night -night license and will continue to
uphold those objectives. I'm a bit surprised in all honesty as a public servant that this has
reached the committee stage without having any more robustness asked as part of the application
process. It makes me question if the council is fulfilling its duty to be able to properly
scrutinise applications around this sort of thing. I think the second one is about
the cold saltation process and I think we might have two different sides to
this but we do not believe based on the number of times we walk past that proper
notice was displayed in the window so we'd really like some confirmation of
that and I think the fact that there's a disconnect between the financing and
licensing, while we understand that they're separate regimes, I think the fact that
you have to make one decision without the other is quite tricky in the fact that it's a not
You seem to be having some technical difficulties, am I the only one? No, sorry you just lost me, it was there
I think the trick in that is the fact that there's no opportunity
for a decision to be made with all of the information available, which makes it quite tricky decision
I think if we move on to the actual application at hand and then the council suggestions,
I think we're very worried about the real issues that affect residents on this road.
So the groups of customers congregating and blocking access both on Fircroft Road, so
you have to walk out onto the road, which doesn't feel particularly safe.
The number of people who kind of congregate on the streets in the middle of the night
on numerous occasions, we've had no choice but call the police.
Other residents have had to come out of their houses, there's been shouting, screaming in the streets.
And then also just meaningful measures in there to protect the residential status of the area.
This is Tooting Beck, it's very different to Tooting Broadway where there's many more bars and establishments.
And I think there's a worry here about the hours creeping later and later and later.
So under the previous administration, places like the Wheat Chief closed on weekdays at half past eleven at night.
the Royal Mahalis midnight on weekdays. This is a two o 'clock in the morning establishment all
throughout the week which is incredibly late for the residential area and there's been very little
consultation on what that means from the border policy shifts. So why is there a need for such
late hours? Why is it two o 'clock and not midnight? And what would be that assessment completed by the
council on that cumulative impact on residents? Similar again, there's a lot of police incidents
in the area around anti -satal behaviour and violence, that feels particularly unsafe and it's not clear to me
if the council have completed any assessment into that and a new late night licence will only compound
some of these issues from our beliefs. It seems really tricky here because I think based on what's
been assessed and the information that's been provided to us, it's really hard to tell if the
council's taking those statutory duties seriously because they haven't been able to respond in a way
has said what they have assessed and also the promises that they've made all at this moment in
time seem quite unenforceable so we don't know how the dispersal policy will be monitored, we don't
know how vehicle nuisance will be controlled, we're not sure what will happen if there's a breach,
there's many other establishments in this area doing similar and having similar requirements.
yeah. As a residential area two o 'clock in the morning I think there's a big question on do
people need to be able to eat at 2am in an establishment both in and out and then it's
just also recognising that the council doesn't appear to fully be able to assess either through
limited information or not asking for more information about public safety, protecting
children of harm and public nuisance. So I think our major concern here is there hasn't
necessarily been opportunity for proper consultation, but doesn't seem to be clear analysis. And
also we're worried about limited justification for why the council has come back with the
decision that it centres on the 4th of February, or the recommendation that centres on the
4th of February. And I think we just want to make sure that the council has really thought
about establishments already in the area, understood about the cumulative impact, which
seems to kind of be speed walking by adding more and more establishments to this later
night economy without any consultation on what that might mean. And then also just really
thinking about how do we make sure that applications are adequate because as it stands, it's been
very, very hard as a resident to be able to assess what the implications might be because
the application is one line, two lines, maybe no lines at best in all of the
things that the council have a duty to have regard to. So I think our main aim
is really to get to a point where we don't have a two o 'clock in the morning
establishment, it's very very late and I think from a residential neighbourhood just
not really appropriate but there's also many steps along the way where it
doesn't feel like the council has fully looked into this in proper detail and
is concerning I think as a resident. Thank you for that representation Ms Sheldon. Now I can see that
Mr Bishop and Mr Flowers have their hands up in response. I don't know if it's appropriate now to
hear from Councillor Critchard or for you to respond to the representations that have been made.
Maybe Mr Flowers might want to go first. Okay Mr Flowers.
Thank you, Chair. It was just to suggest that it might be beneficial for the licensing officer
just to go into a bit more detail about the consultation period and what the requirements
are in terms of the applicant's responsibilities. From previous licensing meetings, I do understand
that it can be confusing in terms of what is required and what isn't. It might be then
that Ms Yelden can explain a bit more if anything the Licensing Officer said she doesn't think
was done because I think that's quite a key point that's been raised. So if I could go
over to Ms Hopkins perhaps to explain a bit more about the consultation process from the
licensing perspective.
Thank you, Mr Flagg.
Mr Bishop -Huffington, thank you.
Thank you. It's a 28 -day consultation period. One of our officers went down there on the 19th of December and took photographs of the notice in situ at the premises.
The other thing that applicants have to do is they have to put a newspaper advert in and we check that and that was complied with.
Those are the only two things that they're legally required to do so and if it's not done then it's not a valid application.
But as far as we're aware it was advertised correctly.
Yeah, sorry, Councillor, you've got your...
Yeah, just to say what newspaper was it advertised in?
When we say it has to be put in the newspaper where?
We have three. It was in the South London Weekly.
We have roughly about three newspapers that we advise people to put it in.
So it could be either be the Wandsworth and Wimbledon and Wandsworth Times,
the South London Press or the South London Weekly. So that was, it was in the
South London Weekly on the 20th of December 2024. Okay thank you and is it
just for that one? It's just for once. Okay thank you and I can see
Ms Yelden, you have some responses. Mr Bishop I will come to you but as this is
a ping -pong let's go back to the representations for Ms Yelden, thank you.
And in terms of the time it's meant to be in the window for, is that meant to be for the 28 -day period as well?
Yes, it was supposed to be up there till the 15th of January, 2020.
And I think that's the concern we have, that photographic evidence we have from about the 31st of December
when we became aware of this establishment and the licensing.
We have evidence that indicates it wasn't in the window for at least a two -week period of that.
So that's my concern that having effectively advertising from the 19th of December when
many people vacate London from Christmas period and then not having it when people return in the
new year potentially means that residents did not have the opportunity to be able to engage with it.
I'm also not sure what window it would have been on so if there's any clarification on that because
two of the windows were blocked very heavily by refuge for that period of time. Well the photos
quite clearly shows the notice in the window. We don't check every
single day of 28 days because we haven't got the staff to do so but it's
resulted in at least your representation and Councillor Critchard.
Unfortunately it didn't result in our representation. We proactively contacted
the council so we didn't see a notice in the window. We proactively contacted
based on some concerns so I think... No you are happy to represent the head times.
This is your representation. Not because of a notice in the window which is a legal
requirement I understand under regulation 25 of the licensing act 2003.
I have no answer for that guy. You're here now so we're discussing the application now.
You're here now, we're having hearing about the application that you've obviously seen the notice or
at some stage or you've got your representation in whether you saw the
Notice on the council's website, whichever way it happened. We're having a hearing on it now
The statutory requirements are complied with as far as the licensing officer is concerned
We note your comment that you don't think that has been fully complied with, but we're having a hearing here today about the application because there are representations against it, and the committee will sit and make a decision about that.
Thank you. I just would like to say, so I was on pause, if we could just for a point
of order not speak over one another. I don't want to have to be the chair that says everything
to go through the chair and I understand that this can be quite a motive from people providing
representations but just respectfully and for the process if we could just allow people
to answer questions and then speak through the chair, I'd appreciate it. Mr Bishop, does
that...
from the point of view of clarification, legal advice, if you want to call it that.
I understand completely your view in terms of the dichotomy between planning and licensing.
The whole point of that dichotomy is to allow flexibility and there's a very extensive case
law on it, which basically says ultimately that planning stays in planning, licensing stays in
licensing, and that anything that needs to be dealt with by the enforcement side of planning
has to be dealt with by the enforcement side of planning. So if you want to, you can obviously
pursue that with the planning or enforcement team at the council.
But obviously the whole point of the different applications being made is
that you don't have to have this thing of one application then another.
And that's why you can make an application and have grant possibly of something
that you may not have planning permission for, but you might get it in due course
or vice versa.
It's just the way the legislation works and the way the case law works.
And there's two different cases there, Blackwood and Summerfield, which both apply in those circumstances.
So that's the planning side.
Was it that you mentioned?
Yeah, I understand your point in relation to the nature of the application and your
request for extensive more detail.
But obviously the client, sorry, the applicant has to comply with the application form and
the operating schedule and that's what we have to look at as a licensing subcommittee.
The use of conditions is also something we look at very carefully and the licensing subcommittee,
when it makes its decision, will consider whether further conditions need to be imposed
if it feels they should.
Yes, in terms of the dispersal policy, obviously if the application is granted, it would be
down to licensing enforcement officers to investigate and work out whether that dispersal
policy is properly in place and properly being enforced and can be enforced by them.
I think that's probably it for the time being. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Bishop. I think it was
incredibly useful to just highlight that this is not unique to Wandsworth, that this is case law
and that this division between planning and licensing isn't a Wandsworth issue,
it's just how business is done. So I appreciate the clarification there. Are there any other
questions from the subcommittee for representations of Miss
Sealden at this point? No. Okay, we'll go over to Councillor
Critchard, please. Thank you.
Thanks. Can I just double check something before I start?
Because I haven't seen a change on the class. I really need to
get this straight in my head. Is now what the application is, is
for a restaurant to be open till two o 'clock in the morning? Yeah?
yes that's what the application is. The 11 o 'clock onwards, I mean you could get take away from a
restaurant before that anyway, so could I just clarify why does that make a difference and
if Mr Bishop's able to answer and then yeah bear with me sorry. Unfortunately this comes from
the creation of the Licensing Act 2003 when it came in,
and probably five or six different pieces of legislation
that were combined together.
And deregulation that's also happened since,
and effectively, if you run a restaurant,
you will have no problem being able to sell your food
from eight, say eight o 'clock in the morning until,
actually say five o 'clock in the morning even,
until 11 o 'clock at night.
There's no license that you have to have in place to do that.
However, if you want to open later than that,
between the hours of 11 up to five,
then you'd have to have a premises license in place to do that,
what is known as late night refreshment.
That's what this applicant is applying for tonight,
to be able to have a restaurant that's open until two,
the ability to do takeaways from it and the ability for people to go in and take
food that they can order at the counter and take it back home. So that's
why they're doing this application. I hope that helps. You're muted. You're muted.
You're muted, Councillor. If you went in past 11 you could sit down and have a
Yes, you could eat in or you could take out either or.
I'm just Mr Mallet, please can you refrain unless I ask you to speak.
Yes, I'm asking.
At the moment we have her in representation from Councillor Critchard and she's asking those of Mr Bishop.
Should you have anything please raise your hand or just a gesture to me that you'd like to speak.
Mr Bishop please can you answer the question posed by Councillor Critchard.
I will.
Yes, so at the moment they can't trade after 11 p .m. and that's why they have
to make this application. Right and the trade could be either. Okay, right, okay
thank you very much. Gosh, sorry I'm just going to try and set up, I would try and
set a timer. Okay so I have five minutes, brilliant. Okay thank you very much
Committee, thank you for hearing my representation. What I'm going to do is first of all remind the
committee of the history of this particular premises, which was, as you know, su generis,
it was a slots. When that application came through Miss Hopkins, probably around 2019,
The applicant then wanted to be open all night and the committee then refused that on the
ground because this is a residential area with lots of people living nearby as Miss
Yelden and her husband do.
And it was felt this area was not suitable for a late night opening of a premises.
So picking up this particular, and obviously one of the things I would say is I don't think
very much has changed. There hasn't been that time to make us consider that the area would
be suitable and therefore a late night opening premises would be something that would be
of its nature a public nuisance. I see there's a complication with planning and licensing.
if at all possible, my recommendation would be that whatever the licensing committee grants
is able to not be applied until the Planning Commission has been resolved. I also would
say I'm disappointed from what Mr Malik has said that we firstly haven't seen the actual
client. And secondly, there seems to have been a history of not knowing that they had
to do a planning application, they had to deal with rubbish, which is actually very
unsettling. Excuse me, I would say for me as a local councillor, to hear this hasn't
been properly, it does not seem to be properly thought through. And I would like the committee
to think about that when looking at things like the dispersal policy. So there's evidence
of not thinking through, it concerns me that the whole thing has not been thought through.
I would say that we have issues locally with other takeaways. And late night opening, the
police have been called. I appreciate Mr. Malik, it might not have been for your premises,
but your premises have only been trading for about six weeks. And that may not be that
we've ended up with the police being called over it. I don't know. But they are called
frequently in that area for other premises locally because the residents
have noticed this. My suggestion is that the late night opening actually will
mean there is public nuisance. Again in the past we had issues when the Classic
Club put open really really late. They have a dispersal policy for
classic was similar that somebody had to, I'm just trying to read it, the dispersal for the classic
was around making sure that people were walked to their cars late, so we didn't have groups of
people coming out being noisy. I think that any dispersal policy has to cover that, but in any
case I think that is inappropriate in this area for a restaurant to be open later than 11 o 'clock
for anything. I would suggest that we would be, I would be very worried about creep because the pub
on the corner isn't allowed to open so late. So I would want the committee to reduce the opening
hours and Miss Yelden has suggested midnight. I would actually suggest given it takes half an hour
to clear the premises that it's 11 o 'clock that they close and if there's a
real issue maybe at the weekend they could open late Friday Saturday if that
was something the committee was minded to do to give a bit of leeway but be
very clear on this. So my suggestion is this is not the place to have late night
opening because it's a residential area. We have previous experience. I know that applicants always
say, well, we don't know it was our premises. But actually, we know that if people are there late
in that area, they cause noise. And I'm afraid, whatever Mr. Malik says, that is unfortunate. And
that is not what my residents wish to do. So I would urge the committee to reconsider the late
license and if you do feel minded that you need to give something that it's
only on a Friday and a Saturday. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Critchard.
Does the subcommittee have any questions for those making representations? Councillor Loyles.
Hello, thank you. I was going to ask Miss Yelden and Mr Southwell, I don't
they're married though Annamarie. They laughed when you said that. I just want to ask, can
you elaborate a bit more on some of the local nuisance issues that you've had? Because I
think it might be useful for context in the area.
Yes, just so you know, we just got engaged, that's why we smiled. But anyway, that said,
I think three spring to mind quite quickly. There was one situation where there was a car, a lot of people drive,
and it's a one -way street, they drive down the street and walk back up after these establishments close.
There was one occasion where there was a group of about six men, probably between the age of about 18 and 25,
gathered at about 1 .30 in the morning when we politely went outside to ask them if they could
maybe be a bit quieter because we sleep in the top bedroom but could still hear them with the windows
closed. We got told to f*** off. So obviously you don't feel particularly safe at which point we
rang the police. There was another occasion where there was a lot of disturbance. I think this is
going back a couple of months in the area where police cars were at the end of the street. A lot
people were then walking up the street to their cars because I think the police were trying to
disperse people away from the immediate incident which meant they ended up on our street. When we
opened the window and just said, because people were talking for a very long time, I got a woman
yelling at his back saying basically to mind your own business despite being a residential area.
And then a third occasion was just, and this is kind of an ongoing occasion, where just as the
corner turns onto Fergroth Road, you get a lot of people gathering and just standing.
So effectively, you can't walk down the pavement. So you have to walk onto the road. And also,
because again, I think it's some groups of on the whole young men in large groups, it's
quite unsettling late at night, I think for people with families and also single women
walking alone, which I don't think ideally would be the sort of situation that people
would want to feel. I think we've also looked at quite a lot of like the statistics when
kind of moving into the area and there's quite a lot of antisocial behaviour and violent
crime which clearly I think is quite concerning and I think would ideally have stopped.
Thank you for that Ms Yoden. Anything more Councillor Lawless?
So I just wanted to just clarify the issues that you raise are not particular to this
business though. They're just general neighbourhood issues. They're not to do with this particular
premises. I think it's really hard to say if it's one business or another because
we don't stand outside the business waiting to see who's left, which
business and then decide who's decided to come onto our street surprisingly at
one o 'clock in the morning. We don't know. For six weeks and they close at 11 so if
there's things possibly happening later and as you said it was months ago some
of this then it's I just want to be clear and in terms of parity and
neutrality, that that's not this particular license because he's only been around for
six weeks and some of the incidences you've raised go back months?
The situations I gave, yes, were not directly related to, the first two were not directly
related to this license. I think the third was over the Christmas period on numerous
occasions where there were groups of young men congregating on the side of the street.
Okay, thank you for the clarity Ms Yeldon. Councillor Critchard.
I was just going to add that the descriptions of what happens that Ms Yeldon has put forward is exactly what we have seen, particularly in the past when it was a classic, sorry I'm trying to deal with my hand Mr Flowers, exactly what we've happened, has happened in the past.
risk. And I appreciate you know, sometimes you can't tell who it is. The thing is that
every time there is a late night opening, that will contribute to it. That's the real
issue for this. And actually restricting the late night opening means you, you don't add
to it. And I would also add the police. That's something that comes up to our water panels
is how we deal with this sort of behaviour from people and why the police are called
and they do have a presence. Thank you for Councillor Critchard. Over to you, Councillor Brooks.
Thank you very much. I'm very sympathetic with what Councillor Critchard's saying. Just a
clarification about what we're allowed to consider. We recently ran the cumulative impact survey
assessment. Sorry. Are we, this might be one for Mr Bishop, are we allowed to consider cumulative
cumulative impact in the context of an individual licensing a subcommittee? Good question. Do you want to put your hand down? Yeah. Good question. Yes, I think
ultimately even if there's no cumulative impact policy in place you're still able
to consider whether there's cumulative impact that might arise from the
operation of the premises.
Great. Thank you very much.
Definitely allowed to do that still.
Thank you. Good.
But obviously, obviously it goes without saying, Councillor Brooks, that you, um,
have to, um, do that on the basis of some evidence, uh,
or some knowledge that you have from the meeting or, or indeed yourselves,
um, fate supplied, as they say.
Thank you.
Thank you. Um, I just had the more two observations, um,
and it was in remarks to make, uh,
by Councillor Critchard about one being the former place
of the slot machines and that there was a decision
not to extend the license.
I do think we do need to distinguish though
between sitting and eating food
and going into essentially a betting house.
So I think that there are a change of the change of use
of those places should, in my opinion,
attracted possibly a different clientele.
So that's the first thing I think we should be mindful
as a subcommittee.
And the second thing is the classics club is a club or was a club. I don't know if it's still going
and once again
I think that may attract a different sort of client of people that are going out to maybe rebel and
dare I say have fun and then you know becoming liberated or drunk or so forth as opposed to someone who may
Let's for instance they say be coming back incredibly late
From ballum walking down and feel like they need to have something to eat at maybe half 11 at night
you know, a betting shop and a club, very different places from a formal restaurant or somewhere you can take food to go.
So I do think it's important that that distinction for the comments that have been raised by Councillor Critchard
are just surface for the subcommittee to take into consideration. Councillor Critchard?
Thank you. Yeah, and I appreciate the distinction. Sorry, I appreciate the distinction.
But I would again say is the one thing it was a slot rather than a betting shop.
And one of the things that probably happens is people go in and out individually.
That's the sort that's a different sort of setup, as opposed to a restaurant where people
come out in groups and it's the coming out in groups, talking loudly and chatting.
And it doesn't make any difference.
I've got a case somewhere else doesn't make any difference whether our polls involved
or not involved.
I don't think there's a problem. It's everyone coming out noisily, walking around being difficult.
And we haven't even discussed rubbish, which is another problem that occurs once you have takeaways with rubbish.
But I would just say is I appreciate that. But I think the movement of the people is actually like to be increased by restaurant.
And that's the issue for the local residents, rather than the noise and the classic that was had a lot of problems movement of people.
So is that helpful? Incredibly helpful and as you've said it actually does give more clarity that the in and out of a slot machine place which essentially is not betting in the sense that you are betting is very different from potential groups of people going out for a mill,
and the noise that's going to cause be amplified from one or two people,
how many people go in and on an individual level.
So thank you for highlighting that, Councillor Critchard.
Ms Yelden, soon to be missing.
Thank you. I was just going to clarify the three scenarios or examples I gave.
Also, I do not believe the individuals were under the influence of alcohol,
so I don't think the presence or dispresence of alcohol is the rationale for the public nuisance in this occasion.
Thank you for that clarity. That really is good for us to consider as the licensing committee.
Okay, I'll get back to my notes.
I now invite, if there aren't any other questions or clarification on anything that has been
stated, I will now invite the attending parties to provide their closing remarks. You will
each have a maximum of two minutes to provide any summary comments before we formally conclude
the public part of the meeting and I invite you to speak in the following order. Representation
and then applicant. So we'll go over to Miss Yelden and then to Councillor Critchard and
then we'll come to the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody for kind of listening to
our representation today and also taking consideration of Councillor Critchard who
has been very helpful throughout this process.
I really appreciate it.
I think our main point is the late night license
being till two o 'clock in the morning.
And I think when we first examined this,
we looked at the week sheets and we looked at the role
and how, where it is not two o 'clock in the morning.
I think we are deeply concerned
that the current requirements
from the planning application do not necessarily
effectively address some of those bigger concerns.
around the dispersal of people, the public noise that comes out of the establishment. So I think
for us the main aim here would really be to not have something extended until two o 'clock in the
morning because I think that by its very definition doesn't create public nuisance if people can't be
about to create that public nuisance. I won't go into much further detail on that, I think it's
quite straightforward and self -explanatory. Thank you for that representation, Ms Yeldon.
Councillor Critchard, do you have anything to say in closing?
Yeah, thanks very much. I'll try and summarise what I'm going to say. First of all, I think
ideally this should be ideally refused, the late night licence should be refused. If the
committee are minded to agree, I would only recommend they ever consider agreeing in part
weekend. And if they are minded to agree, I think we need very tight conditions on dispersal
noise and how that's managed. So that would be making sure that people stay in the restaurant
until they one person goes out to collect the car. Only one person that's there's I
think Miss Hopkins can probably find what the dispersal policy was for the classic I'd
for something absolutely similar. I would recommend a door person on the, I know it's
unusual but because it's late, and I would also suggest that the licence doesn't come
into play until a planning issue has been resolved because actually I think that, and
that would actually be a good thing from the applicant's perspective because I think the
needs to show that they consider that this is in a residential area and they would like to be a good
neighbour and I'm sure that's one of those things that all applicants should consider. So that's my
position. I don't want you to grant it and if you are going to grant it, tied to conditions.
Thank you, Councillor Critchard. Mr Bishop, I saw a hand up, I don't know if it was a legacy hand or
I do, just maybe for parity for, you know, for transparency.
It was more guidance really.
Love a bit of guidance, please.
I'm doing my best.
Excuse me.
So, yeah, again, as I said earlier, in terms of the planning, you can't, as a committee, grant subject to the planning coming into force.
They're different legislation.
So if you were to grant, it would be grant and planning enforcement would stop
something happening until such time as the planning was in force.
The other thing to mention in relation to door supervision and obviously the
idea of effectively somebody having to accompany you to your car. What the
committee has to do when they're making these decisions is to make a decision
which is both appropriate and proportionate. Okay and so you have to
bear that in mind. Such a condition would be a little bit onerous on the
operation premises. So I just put that there in your mind for the committee to
think about when and if they have to make the decision.
Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
I do have a question.
I'm sorry, it's just come to me.
But what is the, now it's being refitted and it's two shops,
what is the capacity?
It's probably in the minutes somewhere.
But actually, as Councillor Critchard
had made that statement, now it makes
me think what is the capacity of what
we're hoping for, Mr. Maddox.
So before you go into your closing statements
to ensure that you have the appropriate time for yourself
to give closing remarks, could you just
yeah, kindly share what the capacity of the restaurant wants all of this refurb
and all of it should the change of use license be granted,
what would be the full capacity of the restaurant that could potentially be
open to two o 'clock in the morning if we were going to give you the license.
Yes, the total seating capacity at the moment when it's fully operational
would be about 250 seats. So it probably won't be more than that.
Sorry, 50 or 250. No, 50. It's not a lot, 50 yeah.
50 seats. Yeah. Okay, thank you for that clarity there.
That's very useful information. Right, so no other questions and if you
would like to speak now Mr Melik, with your closing
remarks you have two minutes. Thank you. I'd just like to point out what
Councillor Critchard said regarding the applicant being a good neighbour
and obviously making sure the planning and everything is addressed to make sure we're
doing our part. Like I said we've done everything we've done from our side, we put the planning
in, we've resolved the issue, we're trying our best to make sure what we do as a business
as ourselves, we're doing the best we can to minimize any nuisance. What nuisance is
caused by any other business is out of our control, that's something the local enforcement
police or they need to address. If the police do turn up and tell residents or people to
walk down certain roads, that's nothing we can control. That's obviously them dispersing
people as quickly as possible. So obviously we can't control that but
anything happens from our side we're gonna try our best to obviously resolve
obviously what kinds of creatures are said having people or staff escorting
members of public to the cars it's only a certain limit you can do that up to
but we're gonna try our best we'll have a people at the door to address people
not to make too much noise outside the shop to get to the cars as soon as
possible because obviously they need to make sure people leave safely and as
quickly as possible and safely and anyone parking inappropriately are like
ideally outside the shop and drop on the curbs those will be restricted as well. They'll
be told to park appropriately in a proper parking bay so staff will make sure people
are not doing something against the law in essence. In terms of late nights applications
there are the premises along the street mainly takeaways that have got approval since 2am
and again like I said those are takeaways so that's a different type of food trade in
and out in and out so there's more nuisance there's more noise and there's more people
going in and out as we are a restaurant there's obviously going to be like I said previously
in the start it's more of an eating so people are going in the sitting down it's been nearly
mostly will takeaways so they could be the reason for nuisance I'm not saying they are
but I was as we are a restaurant so it's completely different scenario and obviously
different kind of environment and setting so it's more family -based and more dining experience so I
think based on that that's all I have to say thank you very much. Thank you Mr Manek. I just would
like to say just for parity, you had said though that this is a
potential place for people to pick up food from and for food
to be delivered from like so I wouldn't want the committee to
be misled. That's a restaurant and then you can go and deliver
route sorry, any of these are just Uber Eats, any of these
delivery places at one and get because a concern is not just
people leaving the restaurant, it is mopeds and delivery
drivers at those late times they do make a nuisance. So I just
wanted to be very clear, do not mislead us by saying, oh, it's
going to be family restaurant. And then actually people start
finding at one, one 32 o 'clock in the morning, lots of delivery
people, whoever, so you can tell which which firm I use, going in
and out because I think that that's dishonest. So whilst you
know, you may have intentions, if you are going to have a
broader plan, then don't try and stick to we're just going to be
a restaurant and actually in six months time, we see it on
delivery for one o 'clock in the morning, because that would be
quite egregious to Councillor Critchard and Ms Yelden and other residents who are under the
impression if they're watching this live this evening that it's a family restaurant. So I just
think that's important to add because we will be considering everything but I take into consideration
if you are allowed to have people coming and going at two o 'clock in the morning or one o 'clock in
the morning there's no reason you would not because you would be allowed to do so. So I just think it's
important we state that. Okay at this point if we have no further questions and no further
I would like to say thank you to everybody. That concludes this part of the meeting. The
decision reasons that any legal guidance given during a subcommittee's discussion that has
informed their decision will be confirmed in writing, together with information about
any rights of appeal within five working days. I would like to thank Ms Yalden and her lovely
fiancé. I would like to thank Councillor Critch, officers and fellow councillors for
being here. Members of the licensing subcommittee, the democratic services officer and legal
advisor, we will now join a separate confidential meeting to make the decision. So may I say
everybody, if I was a teacher I'd say you're the Smith. Have a really pleasant evening.
Ms Yeldon, thank you and your future husband for taking the time to join us this evening.
We really do appreciate when we have residents that care about the area and have questions
that allows us to make informed decisions. Mr Manek, we do appreciate the new businesses
coming into the area, so we thank you for making the application as well. And Councillor
as always, it's a pleasure to see you being so active for the residents and active for yourself.
So have a pleasant evening everybody.
Lovely to meet you. Thanks everyone. Bye bye.
Thank you. Bye bye now.