Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence as set out in Section 1.3 of the Licensing Manager’s report be REFUSED. In making their decision, the Sub Committee considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee today in respect of an application for a new premises licence at Pizza Bites is that the application for the licence is refused. The Sub Committee have listened very carefully to all representations made on 20 July 2023 and read very carefully all the written representations received. The Sub Committee have considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance, and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are set out below. The application was for a licence to be permitted to provide Late Night Refreshment (indoors only) for the following hours: · Sunday to Thursday 23.00 to 24.00 and · Friday to Saturday 23.00 to 1.00. The applicant has been running a takeaway food business from the premises for approximately the last 2 years. The evidence was that his current trading hours are 16.00 to 22.59 daily and is a mix of food sold to walk-in customers and food cooked and delivered to customers via remote ordering. He employs 2 delivery drivers to deliver orders. The applicant’s evidence was that the bulk of his late evening night trade is takeaways that are delivered rather than walk in trade. The Sub Committee needed to consider all four Licensing Objectives in the context of the licensable activity. Some evidence placed before the Sub Committee was not relevant for this purpose. An example was the evidence regarding parking being an issue for residents and patrons along Penallta Road during the daytime or early evening. This evidence needed to be assessed in terms of its relevance to the proposed licensable activity, being the provision of Late Night Refreshment from the premises between 23.00 – 24.00, and 23.00 – 1.00. The relevance on some evidence to this limited issue was not always apparent. Based on the evidence before it the Sub Committee reached the view that there was no evidence in regard to the promotion of the protection of children from harm. There was limited evidence touching on the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. The promotion of the prevention of public nuisance was the most relevant of the 4 licensing objectives in determining this application. The Sub Committee gave significant weight to the evidence from the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) (Responsible Authority) and in assessing this evidence were mindful of paragraph 9.12 of the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the National Guidance”). The Sub Committee regarded the EHO as an expert in her respective field which included issues around public nuisance. The evidence from the EHO largely revolved around noise nuisance being caused by the noise of delivery drivers, their vehicles, noise from the premises itself, and from people using the business and loitering outside the premises that was likely to occur between the hours of 23.00-1.00. Her evidence was that the service she works for had received noise complaints about the applicant’s premises/business earlier in the year, but no response was received from the applicant when invited by letter to contact the service to discuss. At the hearing, the applicant denies the noise was caused in connection to his business at the premises and sought to blame residents of the House of Multiple Occupation above his premises for the noise. This assertion at the hearing was the first response the EHO has had to such invitation to discuss the complaints. The noise complaints from residents appeared to involve the excessive revving of vehicle engines outside the premises by late night customers and or delivery drivers, bins being emptied from the premises at a late hour, extraction fans from the premises, music from customer vehicles and the vehicles of delivery drivers, delivery driver’s use of car horns to indicate their arrival back to the premises in readiness for the next delivery, occasional shouting by individuals using the premises or working within the business at a late hour. The applicant flatly denied the vast majority, if not all of, the allegations of noise nuisance being caused from or in connection with the premises. The Sub Committee found that the resident’s evidence in this regard was more credible. Two residents who gave evidence live in very close proximity to the premises and have observed patterns of behaviour and noise across an extended period of time. The Sub Committee determined that they were very unlikely to be confused about the type of noise nuisance being experienced or the source of such noise. The explanation offered by the applicant at the hearing that the noise was caused by residents of a House of Multiple Occupancy above the premises, was not supported by records held by the EHO or the evidence from the local residents. The Sub Committee took into account that the applicant had failed to respond to the invitation by the EHO to discuss the noise complaints earlier in the year. In short, the evidence of the two local residents living in close proximity and the EHO was preferred to the evidence of the applicant in this respect. The Sub Committee considered paragraph 11.1 of its own policy and considered the noise complaints with a focus on the likely effect of the Late Night Refreshment activity at the specific premises on persons living in the area around the premises. The Sub Committee gave considerable weight to the fact that Penallta Road was a tight mix of commercial and residential properties. It found it relevant that the vast majority of businesses along that road would close by 23.00 or earlier. The residences of two residents making representations appeared to be within 25-30 metres or so from the premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that there was likely to be disproportionate and unreasonable noise disturbances from the premises to local residents should the premises licence be granted. The Sub Committee took into account that the hours between 23.00-24.00 and 23.00-1.00 were hours which most residents would usually be asleep or attempting to get to sleep. The extension of trading hours sought via the premises licence had a significant likelihood of this being regularly interrupted, given the late hours were sought across all 7 nights. The Sub Committee considered the submission from the EHO that she could not formulate conditions within the proposed operating schedule that would adequately uphold the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance. Whilst the Sub Committee acknowledged that the Licensing Act 2003 is a permissive regime and grants of licenses should take place where promotion of the four licensing objectives can be sufficiently safeguarded, it reached a similar conclusion as the EHO. The noise nuisance was unlikely to be able to be prevented due to the nature of the business and the specific location of the premises. They agreed with the EHO that the potential noise nuisance arising between 23.00-24.00 and 23.00-1.00 could not be contained within the premises and aspects of the likely noise nuisance (such as car engines, car horns, customer noise and the like) would be difficult for the applicant to adequately manage. The Sub Committee took into account paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of its policy. They were of the view that this was an application, due to the specific location of the premises and the nature of the business, where the applicant would need to demonstrate a high standard of control to minimise the potential for public nuisance. They expected that the operating schedule accompanying the application would demonstrate an understanding of the potential risk for noise nuisance and the measures proposed to manage the same. The only proposal to address the potential noise nuisance at the late hours between 23.00-1.00 and 23.00-24.00 was to place a sign reminding customers to respect the needs of local residents. The existing noise complaints received by the EHO from local residents earlier in the year and the lack of meaningful engagement by the applicant to resolve such complaints, and the lack of any response from the applicant to any representations other than those made by Gwent Police, undermined the confidence the Sub Committee has in the applicant’s ability, and motivation, to manage the potential noise nuisance should the premises licence be granted. Given the specific location of the premises and the nature of the business the significant risk of very late night noise nuisance appeared to be minimised and downplayed by the applicant at the hearing and was not an issue he sought to engage with, during the consultation process. The vast majority, if not all, noise issues highlighted to the applicant was explained away as not having anything to do with his business at the premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that the resident’s evidence that contradicted this to be credible. The Sub Committee considered nearby premises that do have a premises licence for Late Night Refreshments, as set out within paragraph 1.3.2. The Sub Committee asked the EHO if noise complaints or service requests had been made in relation to those premises, to which the evidence was that there were no records of any noise complaints. She indicated that there had been an odour complaint which appears to have been resolved. The Sub Committee felt that this was a distinguishing element between other nearby licensed premises and the applicant’s premises, in that the later had caused resident noise nuisance complaints being made earlier in the year, prior to any licence application, whereas the other premises had not. The Sub Committee were aware that different locations of premises, even when near to each other, can create different issues at either premises. The specific location of the applicant’s premises, within the one-way system, in an area where parking can be a concern, the inappropriate parking within the rear access lane to resident’s homes, distinguished it from locations of other licensed premises in the area. The Sub Committee heard evidence from two local residents about the proliferation of rubbish in the immediate area which is alleged to have emanated from the applicant’s shop. The Sub Committee took the view that such issue was capable of both causing a public nuisance and being a form of anti-social behaviour. The Sub Committee recognised that the National Guidance (at paragraph 2.21) acknowledges that beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, the matter would be one of personal responsibility of individuals under the law and the applicant would have a diminishing responsibility for such behaviour the further away from the premises it occurred. The Sub Committee took into account the close proximity of the relevant residents to the premises and the throwing of half-eaten food and associated used food containers onto private property, or being discarded in the street. On balance the Sub Committee felt that this issue went to the confidence it could currently place on the applicant in promoting the licencing objectives, as the applicant had not recognised this potential issue within his initial operating schedule or sought to engage with representations regarding this issue, but ultimately this was not a major factor in the Sub Committee’s decision. The Sub Committee received evidence from residents and Gwent Police that was relevant to the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The evidence from Gwent Police indicated a number of reports of anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) within/from Penallta Road – namely 29 reported ASB incidents, and 11 crime reports, between June 2022 and June 2023. The Sub Committee were not presented with any evidence of the nature of the ASB incidents reported, including any trends within the ASB reports that would indicate a particular/reoccurring problem within Penallta Road. There was no similar information for the 11 reported crimes. It was simply a numerical indication for a geographic area. The Sub Committee heard evidence from a local resident in regard to his partner alleged to have been threatened within the premises with a knife by an unknown member of the public in April of this year. Despite this being reported and investigated by Gwent Police, no reference to such alleged occurrence within the representations from Gwent Police to the Licensing Authority. The Sub Committee found the resident credible but the lack of direct evidence from the alleged victim and corroborative information from Gwent Police placed the Sub Committee in the unenvious position of trying to determine what weight should be given to a potentially serious incident without the necessary depth of evidence required in order to determine the impact of this alleged occurrence on the promotion of the relevant licensing objective. Given this, no meaningful weight was placed on this aspect of the evidence in determining the application. A recurrent element throughout residents’ evidence and the evidence at the hearing from Gwent Police was that the premises and its immediate area has increasingly become an area of congregation of youths, often creating ASB issues. One resident explained that the congregations can start shortly after the school day ends, around 4pm and continue for several hours. The Sub Committee recognised that the accumulation of youths that congregate near the premises in the hours prior to the hours sought under the Late Night Refreshment licence would not necessarily be relevant to determining the application. For instance, if the congregations occur between 4pm – 9pm then this would not necessarily be relevant in determining the licence. The Sub Committee accepted that the congregations of youths was an issue – and therefore has the possible potential to continue later into the evening should the premises remain trading beyond 23.00 each evening. Notwithstanding, the Sub Committee gave this limited weight in reaching its decision, given there was no significant detailed evidence as to whether the congregations are still prevalent around 23.00 which made it more likely for this to undermine the relevant licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of disorder) in respect of the licence applied for. The Sub Committee noted that the applicant indicated that he has sought the license to be able to compete with local competitors who are licensed to provide Late Night Refreshment after 23.00. The Sub Committee understood such motivation but unfortunately this commercial consideration was not relevant in its consideration of the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives. The Sub Committee had to base its considerations on the specific site of the premises, the nature of the business, its confidence conditions of any licence would sufficiently promote the licensing objectives, and confidence in the applicant’s ability to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee, in this instance, was not adequately satisfied that the licensing objectives, principally the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance, would be sufficiently promoted. The decision notice advised that any person aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision. The meeting closed at 12.06 p.m. _______________________ CHAIR
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A. Angel and J. Jones
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence as set out in Section 1.3 of the Licensing Manager’s report be REFUSED. In making their decision, the Sub Committee considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee today in respect of an application for a new premises licence at Pizza Bites is that the application for the licence is refused. The Sub Committee have listened very carefully to all representations made on 20 July 2023 and read very carefully all the written representations received. The Sub Committee have considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance, and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are set out below. The application was for a licence to be permitted to provide Late Night Refreshment (indoors only) for the following hours: · Sunday to Thursday 23.00 to 24.00 and · Friday to Saturday 23.00 to 1.00. The applicant has been running a takeaway food business from the premises for approximately the last 2 years. The evidence was that his current trading hours are 16.00 to 22.59 daily and is a mix of food sold to walk-in customers and food cooked and delivered to customers via remote ordering. He employs 2 delivery drivers to deliver orders. The applicant’s evidence was that the bulk of his late evening night trade is takeaways that are delivered rather than walk in trade. The Sub Committee needed to consider all four Licensing Objectives in the context of the licensable activity. Some evidence placed before the Sub Committee was not relevant for this purpose. An example was the evidence regarding parking being an issue for residents and patrons along Penallta Road during the daytime or early evening. This evidence needed to be assessed in terms of its relevance to the proposed licensable activity, being the provision of Late Night Refreshment from the premises between 23.00 – 24.00, and 23.00 – 1.00. The relevance on some evidence to this limited issue was not always apparent. Based on the evidence before it the Sub Committee reached the view that there was no evidence in regard to the promotion of the protection of children from harm. There was limited evidence touching on the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. The promotion of the prevention of public nuisance was the most relevant of the 4 licensing objectives in determining this application. The Sub Committee gave significant weight to the evidence from the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) (Responsible Authority) and in assessing this evidence were mindful of paragraph 9.12 of the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the National Guidance”). The Sub Committee regarded the EHO as an expert in her respective field which included issues around public nuisance. The evidence from the EHO largely revolved around noise nuisance being caused by the noise of delivery drivers, their vehicles, noise from the premises itself, and from people using the business and loitering outside the premises that was likely to occur between the hours of 23.00-1.00. Her evidence was that the service she works for had received noise complaints about the applicant’s premises/business earlier in the year, but no response was received from the applicant when invited by letter to contact the service to discuss. At the hearing, the applicant denies the noise was caused in connection to his business at the premises and sought to blame residents of the House of Multiple Occupation above his premises for the noise. This assertion at the hearing was the first response the EHO has had to such invitation to discuss the complaints. The noise complaints from residents appeared to involve the excessive revving of vehicle engines outside the premises by late night customers and or delivery drivers, bins being emptied from the premises at a late hour, extraction fans from the premises, music from customer vehicles and the vehicles of delivery drivers, delivery driver’s use of car horns to indicate their arrival back to the premises in readiness for the next delivery, occasional shouting by individuals using the premises or working within the business at a late hour. The applicant flatly denied the vast majority, if not all of, the allegations of noise nuisance being caused from or in connection with the premises. The Sub Committee found that the resident’s evidence in this regard was more credible. Two residents who gave evidence live in very close proximity to the premises and have observed patterns of behaviour and noise across an extended period of time. The Sub Committee determined that they were very unlikely to be confused about the type of noise nuisance being experienced or the source of such noise. The explanation offered by the applicant at the hearing that the noise was caused by residents of a House of Multiple Occupancy above the premises, was not supported by records held by the EHO or the evidence from the local residents. The Sub Committee took into account that the applicant had failed to respond to the invitation by the EHO to discuss the noise complaints earlier in the year. In short, the evidence of the two local residents living in close proximity and the EHO was preferred to the evidence of the applicant in this respect. The Sub Committee considered paragraph 11.1 of its own policy and considered the noise complaints with a focus on the likely effect of the Late Night Refreshment activity at the specific premises on persons living in the area around the premises. The Sub Committee gave considerable weight to the fact that Penallta Road was a tight mix of commercial and residential properties. It found it relevant that the vast majority of businesses along that road would close by 23.00 or earlier. The residences of two residents making representations appeared to be within 25-30 metres or so from the premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that there was likely to be disproportionate and unreasonable noise disturbances from the premises to local residents should the premises licence be granted. The Sub Committee took into account that the hours between 23.00-24.00 and 23.00-1.00 were hours which most residents would usually be asleep or attempting to get to sleep. The extension of trading hours sought via the premises licence had a significant likelihood of this being regularly interrupted, given the late hours were sought across all 7 nights. The Sub Committee considered the submission from the EHO that she could not formulate conditions within the proposed operating schedule that would adequately uphold the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance. Whilst the Sub Committee acknowledged that the Licensing Act 2003 is a permissive regime and grants of licenses should take place where promotion of the four licensing objectives can be sufficiently safeguarded, it reached a similar conclusion as the EHO. The noise nuisance was unlikely to be able to be prevented due to the nature of the business and the specific location of the premises. They agreed with the EHO that the potential noise nuisance arising between 23.00-24.00 and 23.00-1.00 could not be contained within the premises and aspects of the likely noise nuisance (such as car engines, car horns, customer noise and the like) would be difficult for the applicant to adequately manage. The Sub Committee took into account paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of its policy. They were of the view that this was an application, due to the specific location of the premises and the nature of the business, where the applicant would need to demonstrate a high standard of control to minimise the potential for public nuisance. They expected that the operating schedule accompanying the application would demonstrate an understanding of the potential risk for noise nuisance and the measures proposed to manage the same. The only proposal to address the potential noise nuisance at the late hours between 23.00-1.00 and 23.00-24.00 was to place a sign reminding customers to respect the needs of local residents. The existing noise complaints received by the EHO from local residents earlier in the year and the lack of meaningful engagement by the applicant to resolve such complaints, and the lack of any response from the applicant to any representations other than those made by Gwent Police, undermined the confidence the Sub Committee has in the applicant’s ability, and motivation, to manage the potential noise nuisance should the premises licence be granted. Given the specific location of the premises and the nature of the business the significant risk of very late night noise nuisance appeared to be minimised and downplayed by the applicant at the hearing and was not an issue he sought to engage with, during the consultation process. The vast majority, if not all, noise issues highlighted to the applicant was explained away as not having anything to do with his business at the premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that the resident’s evidence that contradicted this to be credible. The Sub Committee considered nearby premises that do have a premises licence for Late Night Refreshments, as set out within paragraph 1.3.2. The Sub Committee asked the EHO if noise complaints or service requests had been made in relation to those premises, to which the evidence was that there were no records of any noise complaints. She indicated that there had been an odour complaint which appears to have been resolved. The Sub Committee felt that this was a distinguishing element between other nearby licensed premises and the applicant’s premises, in that the later had caused resident noise nuisance complaints being made earlier in the year, prior to any licence application, whereas the other premises had not. The Sub Committee were aware that different locations of premises, even when near to each other, can create different issues at either premises. The specific location of the applicant’s premises, within the one-way system, in an area where parking can be a concern, the inappropriate parking within the rear access lane to resident’s homes, distinguished it from locations of other licensed premises in the area. The Sub Committee heard evidence from two local residents about the proliferation of rubbish in the immediate area which is alleged to have emanated from the applicant’s shop. The Sub Committee took the view that such issue was capable of both causing a public nuisance and being a form of anti-social behaviour. The Sub Committee recognised that the National Guidance (at paragraph 2.21) acknowledges that beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, the matter would be one of personal responsibility of individuals under the law and the applicant would have a diminishing responsibility for such behaviour the further away from the premises it occurred. The Sub Committee took into account the close proximity of the relevant residents to the premises and the throwing of half-eaten food and associated used food containers onto private property, or being discarded in the street. On balance the Sub Committee felt that this issue went to the confidence it could currently place on the applicant in promoting the licencing objectives, as the applicant had not recognised this potential issue within his initial operating schedule or sought to engage with representations regarding this issue, but ultimately this was not a major factor in the Sub Committee’s decision. The Sub Committee received evidence from residents and Gwent Police that was relevant to the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The evidence from Gwent Police indicated a number of reports of anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) within/from Penallta Road – namely 29 reported ASB incidents, and 11 crime reports, between June 2022 and June 2023. The Sub Committee were not presented with any evidence of the nature of the ASB incidents reported, including any trends within the ASB reports that would indicate a particular/reoccurring problem within Penallta Road. There was no similar information for the 11 reported crimes. It was simply a numerical indication for a geographic area. The Sub Committee heard evidence from a local resident in regard to his partner alleged to have been threatened within the premises with a knife by an unknown member of the public in April of this year. Despite this being reported and investigated by Gwent Police, no reference to such alleged occurrence within the representations from Gwent Police to the Licensing Authority. The Sub Committee found the resident credible but the lack of direct evidence from the alleged victim and corroborative information from Gwent Police placed the Sub Committee in the unenvious position of trying to determine what weight should be given to a potentially serious incident without the necessary depth of evidence required in order to determine the impact of this alleged occurrence on the promotion of the relevant licensing objective. Given this, no meaningful weight was placed on this aspect of the evidence in determining the application. A recurrent element throughout residents’ evidence and the evidence at the hearing from Gwent Police was that the premises and its immediate area has increasingly become an area of congregation of youths, often creating ASB issues. One resident explained that the congregations can start shortly after the school day ends, around 4pm and continue for several hours. The Sub Committee recognised that the accumulation of youths that congregate near the premises in the hours prior to the hours sought under the Late Night Refreshment licence would not necessarily be relevant to determining the application. For instance, if the congregations occur between 4pm – 9pm then this would not necessarily be relevant in determining the licence. The Sub Committee accepted that the congregations of youths was an issue – and therefore has the possible potential to continue later into the evening should the premises remain trading beyond 23.00 each evening. Notwithstanding, the Sub Committee gave this limited weight in reaching its decision, given there was no significant detailed evidence as to whether the congregations are still prevalent around 23.00 which made it more likely for this to undermine the relevant licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of disorder) in respect of the licence applied for. The Sub Committee noted that the applicant indicated that he has sought the license to be able to compete with local competitors who are licensed to provide Late Night Refreshment after 23.00. The Sub Committee understood such motivation but unfortunately this commercial consideration was not relevant in its consideration of the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives. The Sub Committee had to base its considerations on the specific site of the premises, the nature of the business, its confidence conditions of any licence would sufficiently promote the licensing objectives, and confidence in the applicant’s ability to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee, in this instance, was not adequately satisfied that the licensing objectives, principally the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance, would be sufficiently promoted. The decision notice advised that any person aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision. The meeting closed at 12.06 p.m. _______________________ CHAIR
The Chairman opened the meeting and introductions were made. The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing Officer, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from the responsible authorities and local residents who were objecting to the application. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application submitted for a new premises licence for (Pizza Bites, 2b Penallta Road, Ystrad Mynach, Hengoed, CF82 7AP with the proposed operating hours for Late Night Refreshment (LNR) (indoors only) as follows:- a. Sunday to Thursday 23.00 to 24.00 b. Friday to Saturday 23.00 to 01.00 The Licensing Manager advised the Sub-Committee that during the 28consultation period, representations were received from Heddlu Gwent Police, Trading Standards, Environmental Health and the Licensing Authority in their capacity as a Responsible Authority. The Sub- Committee were further informed that during the consultation period there had also been representations received for Cllr. A. Angel as a Local Ward Member along with representations from Gelligaer Community Council and three local residents. These representations were set out in section 1.5 and1.6 of the report, copies of which were attached to the report circulated with the agenda. Attention was then drawn to the local policy considerations as set out in section 1.4 of the report and to the way in which the Sub Committee would deal with the application. The Sub Committee were referred to the recommendation set out in the Licensing Officer’s report, which considered the position of the Responsible Authorities, together with the concerns received from other persons i.e., a Local Ward Member, residents and a the local Community Council around the applicants ability to promote the Licensing Objectives (particularly the promotion of the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective) and recommended that the application for a new premises licence be refused. There were no questions for the Licensing Manager and representations were then invited from the applicant, Mr A. Khazri. The applicant Mr Khazri addressed the Sub Committee in his submission he informed the Sub Committee that Pizza Bites had been trading for the past two years. The applicant explained the main reason for which the application had been submitted was to operate to the same hours as other businesses within the vicinity which are permitted to operate after 11.00p.m. The applicant felt that was unfair to assume that the concerns from the local residents were related solely to his business. The Sub Committee were informed that it was the applicant’s belief that issues with parking and noise came from another business during the day and the residents of four multiple occupancy flats situated directly above Pizza Bites. The applicant acknowledged his previous mistake in providing late night refreshment later than 11pm without the benefit of a premises licence. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. A Member of the sub committee sought clarification on the comments submitted from Environmental Health, in relation to two letters being sent to the applicant in relation to noise complaints received, which invited the applicant to contact the team to discuss the issues raised. It was noted that, the applicant had failed to respond. The applicant stated that he has now spoken with a member of the team and explained that he believes the noise issues are emanating from another premises, as part of the noise complaint has been regarding the playing of loud music. However, there is no music system within the premises and the applicant has requested a noise monitoring machine be placed at his premises. In response to a Member’s query, the applicant assured the sub committee that all of the deliver drivers have been told not to play loud music or cause noise disturbance to the residents when collecting their deliveries. The applicant emphasised that this is a busy road which has many vehicles travelling on, that are not connected to his business. Attention was drawn to the representation received from Heddlu Gwent Police which suggested a reduction in the times the applicant had applied for. The applicant responded and reiterated that he would like to be granted the same times as other premises of the same nature as his own in the town centre. The Trading Standards Officer sought clarification regarding the flats the applicant had referred to. The applicant explained that there are flat situated about his premises, which house around four tenants per flat. The applicant believes that the noise disturbance late into the night could be emanating from them, and residents are mistakenly confusing them with the staff at Pizza Bites. Representations were then invited from Responsible Authorities. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) referred to their representations and confirmed that Environmental Health would not support the grant of a new premises licence as in their opinion it would undermine the prevention of public nuisance objective. The Officer advised the sub committee that should the premises obtain a premises licence to allow them to operate passed 11.00pm it would result in an unacceptable increase in persons (customers and delivery drivers) attending the premise at a time which would have a detrimental effect on the residents living in the vicinity of the premises. The sub committee were made aware that the Environmental Health Department has received complaints from local residents regarding noise from the premises, noise from delivery drivers, shouting, and anti-social behaviour. It is the opinion of the EHO that these disturbances cannot be reduced to a reasonable level by conditions being attached to the operating schedule. All parties present, were invited to ask questions of the Environmental Health Officer. Clarification was sought be a Member as to whether the Environmental Health Department had received any complaints in relation to the four flats Mr Khazri has referred to in the past. The EHO confirmed that no complaints have been registered on their system. A Member sought clarification on the reason Environment Health does not find it appropriate for the premises to open until midnight in line with neighbouring businesses similar to the applicant’s business type. The EHO explained that having checked their system they have not received any noise complaints in relation to any of the neighbouring premises. The Officer further explained that in relation to this particular premises it is the location, there are houses directly behind and a lane which seem to be the location of a number of the noise complaint issues. The applicant clarified that the majority of his business is carried out via deliveries and the number of customers that go into the premises is a small part of the business. The applicant stated again that they would be happy for the Authority to fit noise recording equipment inside the premises to measure the noise. Representations were then invited from the Trading Standards Officer (TSO) who referred to their representations submitted and confirmed that they supported the objections submitted from Environmental Health and Trading Standards would also not support the grant of this premises licence. The Officer advised the Sub Committee that they had received complaints that the premises has been operating after 11.00pm in contravention of the Licensing Act 2003, the complaints concentrating on nuisance from customers and staff after 11.00pm. The premises are subject to a current investigation into breaches of the Licensing Act. The Sub Committee noted that during routine Trading Standards inspectional visits, it has been noted that the premises is an attractive place for youths to congregate. It was further noted that after the premises closes, staff from this business and other person congregate in the street. The applicant stated that the business has only two delivery drivers and after 11.00pm they are sent home, therefore he did not accept that the congregation outside the shop was from his staff. Representations were then invited from Heddlu Gwent Police. PC Adrian Jones referred the Sub Committee to representations submitted by their colleague PC J Taylor as set out in the agenda pack. The Officer advised Sub Committee members that Gwent Police do not object to the whole application and propose that the premises closes at midnight Monday to Sunday in line with other late night refreshment establishments in Ystrad Mynach which would assist the applicant in promoting the licensing objectives namely, the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. Gwent Police also advocated the re wording of the conditions provided by the applicant on application together with additional conditions suggested by Gwent Police to assist in the promotion of the licensing objectives. The sub committee’s attention was drawn to Appendix 7 of the report which outlined these changes and additions. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the Police Officer A Member noted that within the representations, there was mention of a sofa and a recommendation of removing it. The Member sought clarification on whether the Officer would agree if this was removed then it would mitigate the congregation of youths inside the shop. The Officer agreed this could solve part of the anti-social issues. A Member further sought clarification on the 40 incidents referred to in the Officers representation, and whether they were linked directly to Pizza Bites location. The Officer clarified that system used identified streets and postcode, therefore it was fair to say that they may not have been in relation to this premises. Representations were then invited from the Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority. The Senior Licensing Officer referred to representations submitted by her colleague the Assistant Licensing Manager which indicated should the application be granted it would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. The Officer advised the Sub Committee that following the submission of the premises licence application the Assistant Licensing Manager visited the premises on 13th June 2023, together with an Officer from Gwent Police to discuss the applicant’s proposals. The Officer also stated that the Licensing Authority was aware of complaints received regarding the use of the premises after 11.00pm and was aware that Trading Standards had recently carried out investigations. The complaints also referred to noise and litter issues. Therefore, the Officer advised Members that the Licensing Authority are objecting to the application in its current form and would support the representations submitted by the other Responsible Authorities. There were no questions for Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority and representations were then invited from Local Residents (other persons). Ms A. Woods (local resident) addressed the Sub Committee and referred to the objection that was submitted, the resident strongly felt that since the premises was opened, she now feels unsafe walking to the local shop in the evenings due to the youths congregating outside the premises. Therefore, Ms Woods would like to object to the grant of the licence. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions. The applicant sought clarification on whether Ms Woods had felt uncomfortable from youths that were customers of Pizza Bites. Ms Wood clarified that it was all youths in the area. However, it has only been since Pizza Bites has opened that the issue has arisen. Mr R. Richards (local resident), referred to his objection and stated that he would be opposed to the premises licence being granted as he believes it would undermine the licensing objectives. Mr Richards advised the Sub Committee that since the business has been in operation over the past 2 years he has experienced criminal damage to his property. Mr Richards informed the Sub Committee that his partner had been threatened with a knife inside the premises. Mr Richards also referred to issues of noise from the delivery drivers for the business and also parking and blocking the entrance to his property. There is also litter emanating from the premises. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions. The Legal Officer ask Mr Richards to explain to the Sub Committee the basis on why he believes the delivery drivers causing the issues are connected to Pizza Bites. Mr Richards explained he has actually gone into the premises and requested that the drivers to move their vehicles and they have come out and moved them. Mr G. Enright (local resident) addressed the Sub Committee and referred to the objection that he had submitted, explaining that he lives opposite this premises and has experienced issues with delivery drivers blocking his drive, that has meant on occasions he has not been able to get out or get into his property. Mr Enright also the impact from noise which currently emanates from the premises is unbearable, therefore, from youth congregating inside and around the premises, therefore Mr Enright felt that if the premises were to have the ability to operate passed 11.00pm would be unbearable. In response to a question raised by a member of the Sub Committee Mr Enright strongly agreed that the sofa in the premises needs to be removed immediately, and believed this could help curtail the issues with the Youths congregating at the premises. Representations were invited from Ms C. Mortimer (representative of Gelligaer Community Council). Ms Mortimer referred to the objections of Gelligaer Community Council, who are unanimously opposed to the application, as they feel the residents that are in close proximity to the premises will suffer noise nuisance late into the night if the licence were to be granted. It is also felt that a premises offering late night refreshment could attract drunken costumers, which could lead to antisocial behaviour issues. There were no questions raised for Ms Mortimer and all parties were afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. The Licensing Manager asked Members to consider all the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting, and all the Licensing guidance when making their decision. Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Gwent Police and the Licensing Authority as a Responsible Authority confirmed they had no closing remarks to add to their representations. The local residents and the representative from the Community Council also confirmed that they had no closing remarks. In summing up, Mr Khazri reiterated that the establishment is trying to operate with the same hours as other local business of the same nature as his own in the vicinity of his premises in order to have make a fair living. The Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed in writing of the decision in the next 5 days. The Sub Committee retired at 11.31am to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. Following consideration of the application and having regard to the Licensing Officer’s report and all the representations made, the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee unanimously RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence as set out in Section 1.3 of the Licensing Manager’s report be REFUSED. In making their decision, the Sub Committee considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, revised Home Office Guidance and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee today in respect of an application for a new premises licence at Pizza Bites is that the application for the licence is refused. The Sub Committee have listened very carefully to all representations made on 20 July 2023 and read very carefully all the written representations received. The Sub Committee have considered all four Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Act 2003, the revised Home Office Guidance, and Caerphilly Council’s Licensing Policy. The reasons for the Sub Committee’s decision are set out below. The application was for a licence to be permitted to provide Late Night Refreshment (indoors only) for the following hours: · Sunday to Thursday 23.00 to 24.00 and · Friday to Saturday 23.00 to 1.00. The applicant has been running a takeaway food business from the premises for approximately the last 2 years. The evidence was that his current trading hours are 16.00 to 22.59 daily and is a mix of food sold to walk-in customers and food cooked and delivered to customers via remote ordering. He employs 2 delivery drivers to deliver orders. The applicant’s evidence was that the bulk of his late evening night trade is takeaways that are delivered rather than walk in trade. The Sub Committee needed to consider all four Licensing Objectives in the context of the licensable activity. Some evidence placed before the Sub Committee was not relevant for this purpose. An example was the evidence regarding parking being an issue for residents and patrons along Penallta Road during the daytime or early evening. This evidence needed to be assessed in terms of its relevance to the proposed licensable activity, being the provision of Late Night Refreshment from the premises between 23.00 – 24.00, and 23.00 – 1.00. The relevance on some evidence to this limited issue was not always apparent. Based on the evidence before it the Sub Committee reached the view that there was no evidence in regard to the promotion of the protection of children from harm. There was limited evidence touching on the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. The promotion of the prevention of public nuisance was the most relevant of the 4 licensing objectives in determining this application. The Sub Committee gave significant weight to the evidence from the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) (Responsible Authority) and in assessing this evidence were mindful of paragraph 9.12 of the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the National Guidance”). The Sub Committee regarded the EHO as an expert in her respective field which included issues around public nuisance. The evidence from the EHO largely revolved around noise nuisance being caused by the noise of delivery drivers, their vehicles, noise from the premises itself, and from people using the business and loitering outside the premises that was likely to occur between the hours of 23.00-1.00. Her evidence was that the service she works for had received noise complaints about the applicant’s premises/business earlier in the year, but no response was received from the applicant when invited by letter to contact the service to discuss. At the hearing, the applicant denies the noise was caused in connection to his business at the premises and sought to blame residents of the House of Multiple Occupation above his premises for the noise. This assertion at the hearing was the first response the EHO has had to such invitation to discuss the complaints. The noise complaints from residents appeared to involve the excessive revving of vehicle engines outside the premises by late night customers and or delivery drivers, bins being emptied from the premises at a late hour, extraction fans from the premises, music from customer vehicles and the vehicles of delivery drivers, delivery driver’s use of car horns to indicate their arrival back to the premises in readiness for the next delivery, occasional shouting by individuals using the premises or working within the business at a late hour. The applicant flatly denied the vast majority, if not all of, the allegations of noise nuisance being caused from or in connection with the premises. The Sub Committee found that the resident’s evidence in this regard was more credible. Two residents who gave evidence live in very close proximity to the premises and have observed patterns of behaviour and noise across an extended period of time. The Sub Committee determined that they were very unlikely to be confused about the type of noise nuisance being experienced or the source of such noise. The explanation offered by the applicant at the hearing that the noise was caused by residents of a House of Multiple Occupancy above the premises, was not supported by records held by the EHO or the evidence from the local residents. The Sub Committee took into account that the applicant had failed to respond to the invitation by the EHO to discuss the noise complaints earlier in the year. In short, the evidence of the two local residents living in close proximity and the EHO was preferred to the evidence of the applicant in this respect. The Sub Committee considered paragraph 11.1 of its own policy and considered the noise complaints with a focus on the likely effect of the Late Night Refreshment activity at the specific premises on persons living in the area around the premises. The Sub Committee gave considerable weight to the fact that Penallta Road was a tight mix of commercial and residential properties. It found it relevant that the vast majority of businesses along that road would close by 23.00 or earlier. The residences of two residents making representations appeared to be within 25-30 metres or so from the premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that there was likely to be disproportionate and unreasonable noise disturbances from the premises to local residents should the premises licence be granted. The Sub Committee took into account that the hours between 23.00-24.00 and 23.00-1.00 were hours which most residents would usually be asleep or attempting to get to sleep. The extension of trading hours sought via the premises licence had a significant likelihood of this being regularly interrupted, given the late hours were sought across all 7 nights. The Sub Committee considered the submission from the EHO that she could not formulate conditions within the proposed operating schedule that would adequately uphold the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance. Whilst the Sub Committee acknowledged that the Licensing Act 2003 is a permissive regime and grants of licenses should take place where promotion of the four licensing objectives can be sufficiently safeguarded, it reached a similar conclusion as the EHO. The noise nuisance was unlikely to be able to be prevented due to the nature of the business and the specific location of the premises. They agreed with the EHO that the potential noise nuisance arising between 23.00-24.00 and 23.00-1.00 could not be contained within the premises and aspects of the likely noise nuisance (such as car engines, car horns, customer noise and the like) would be difficult for the applicant to adequately manage. The Sub Committee took into account paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of its policy. They were of the view that this was an application, due to the specific location of the premises and the nature of the business, where the applicant would need to demonstrate a high standard of control to minimise the potential for public nuisance. They expected that the operating schedule accompanying the application would demonstrate an understanding of the potential risk for noise nuisance and the measures proposed to manage the same. The only proposal to address the potential noise nuisance at the late hours between 23.00-1.00 and 23.00-24.00 was to place a sign reminding customers to respect the needs of local residents. The existing noise complaints received by the EHO from local residents earlier in the year and the lack of meaningful engagement by the applicant to resolve such complaints, and the lack of any response from the applicant to any representations other than those made by Gwent Police, undermined the confidence the Sub Committee has in the applicant’s ability, and motivation, to manage the potential noise nuisance should the premises licence be granted. Given the specific location of the premises and the nature of the business the significant risk of very late night noise nuisance appeared to be minimised and downplayed by the applicant at the hearing and was not an issue he sought to engage with, during the consultation process. The vast majority, if not all, noise issues highlighted to the applicant was explained away as not having anything to do with his business at the premises. The Sub Committee reached the view that the resident’s evidence that contradicted this to be credible. The Sub Committee considered nearby premises that do have a premises licence for Late Night Refreshments, as set out within paragraph 1.3.2. The Sub Committee asked the EHO if noise complaints or service requests had been made in relation to those premises, to which the evidence was that there were no records of any noise complaints. She indicated that there had been an odour complaint which appears to have been resolved. The Sub Committee felt that this was a distinguishing element between other nearby licensed premises and the applicant’s premises, in that the later had caused resident noise nuisance complaints being made earlier in the year, prior to any licence application, whereas the other premises had not. The Sub Committee were aware that different locations of premises, even when near to each other, can create different issues at either premises. The specific location of the applicant’s premises, within the one-way system, in an area where parking can be a concern, the inappropriate parking within the rear access lane to resident’s homes, distinguished it from locations of other licensed premises in the area. The Sub Committee heard evidence from two local residents about the proliferation of rubbish in the immediate area which is alleged to have emanated from the applicant’s shop. The Sub Committee took the view that such issue was capable of both causing a public nuisance and being a form of anti-social behaviour. The Sub Committee recognised that the National Guidance (at paragraph 2.21) acknowledges that beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, the matter would be one of personal responsibility of individuals under the law and the applicant would have a diminishing responsibility for such behaviour the further away from the premises it occurred. The Sub Committee took into account the close proximity of the relevant residents to the premises and the throwing of half-eaten food and associated used food containers onto private property, or being discarded in the street. On balance the Sub Committee felt that this issue went to the confidence it could currently place on the applicant in promoting the licencing objectives, as the applicant had not recognised this potential issue within his initial operating schedule or sought to engage with representations regarding this issue, but ultimately this was not a major factor in the Sub Committee’s decision. The Sub Committee received evidence from residents and Gwent Police that was relevant to the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The evidence from Gwent Police indicated a number of reports of anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) within/from Penallta Road – namely 29 reported ASB incidents, and 11 crime reports, between June 2022 and June 2023. The Sub Committee were not presented with any evidence of the nature of the ASB incidents reported, including any trends within the ASB reports that would indicate a particular/reoccurring problem within Penallta Road. There was no similar information for the 11 reported crimes. It was simply a numerical indication for a geographic area. The Sub Committee heard evidence from a local resident in regard to his partner alleged to have been threatened within the premises with a knife by an unknown member of the public in April of this year. Despite this being reported and investigated by Gwent Police, no reference to such alleged occurrence within the representations from Gwent Police to the Licensing Authority. The Sub Committee found the resident credible but the lack of direct evidence from the alleged victim and corroborative information from Gwent Police placed the Sub Committee in the unenvious position of trying to determine what weight should be given to a potentially serious incident without the necessary depth of evidence required in order to determine the impact of this alleged occurrence on the promotion of the relevant licensing objective. Given this, no meaningful weight was placed on this aspect of the evidence in determining the application. A recurrent element throughout residents’ evidence and the evidence at the hearing from Gwent Police was that the premises and its immediate area has increasingly become an area of congregation of youths, often creating ASB issues. One resident explained that the congregations can start shortly after the school day ends, around 4pm and continue for several hours. The Sub Committee recognised that the accumulation of youths that congregate near the premises in the hours prior to the hours sought under the Late Night Refreshment licence would not necessarily be relevant to determining the application. For instance, if the congregations occur between 4pm – 9pm then this would not necessarily be relevant in determining the licence. The Sub Committee accepted that the congregations of youths was an issue – and therefore has the possible potential to continue later into the evening should the premises remain trading beyond 23.00 each evening. Notwithstanding, the Sub Committee gave this limited weight in reaching its decision, given there was no significant detailed evidence as to whether the congregations are still prevalent around 23.00 which made it more likely for this to undermine the relevant licensing objectives (prevention of public nuisance, prevention of disorder) in respect of the licence applied for. The Sub Committee noted that the applicant indicated that he has sought the license to be able to compete with local competitors who are licensed to provide Late Night Refreshment after 23.00. The Sub Committee understood such motivation but unfortunately this commercial consideration was not relevant in its consideration of the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives. The Sub Committee had to base its considerations on the specific site of the premises, the nature of the business, its confidence conditions of any licence would sufficiently promote the licensing objectives, and confidence in the applicant’s ability to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee, in this instance, was not adequately satisfied that the licensing objectives, principally the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance, would be sufficiently promoted. The decision notice advised that any person aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal to the local Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision. The meeting closed at 12.06 p.m. _______________________ CHAIR
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.