Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. One is written once the council publishes the minutes. The agenda and papers are below.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors W. Williams and M. Adams.
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
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 Manager, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from Environmental Health pollution Team in its role as a responsible authority who had objected to the application. The Chair invited the Licensing Manager to present the report. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application submitted for a Determination of Premises Licence in respect of Philly Grill, Cardiff Road, Caerphilly. Members were provided with Information on the existence of other late-night venues in the area. It was highlighted that Environmental Health had objected due to concerns about public nuisance, particularly noise, and the lack of planning permission for the requested hours. The application sought to permit the following Licensable Activities: late night refreshment (hot food and drink) from 23:00 to 02:00am Monday to Sunday. The Licensing Manager referred to the plans at Appendix 1 to 3, the steps volunteered by the applicant detailed at paragraph 1.3.1 and the existing late night refreshments establishments in the vicinity listed in paragraph 1.3.2 and guided Members to the objection made at Paragraph 1.5, which resulted in the application being brought before Members to determine.. Attention was drawn to the local policy considerations as set out in within the Licensing Officers report and to the way in which the Sub Committee should deal with the application. The Sub Committee were also referred to the recommendation set out in the report, which considered the position of the Responsible Authority and the Applicant’s ability to promote the Licensing Objectives (particularly the promotion of the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective). Members were advised that the applicant had been appraised of the comments of the Responsible Authority and responses to those comments which could be found at appendix 7. The Chair thanked the Officer and all parties present, were invited to ask questions. The Chair referred to the other venues within close proximity to this premise that are open until 2:00am and asked for further information on them. The Licensing Manager confirmed that there were other premises, but this premise was different to those and stated that the Environmental Health Officer would be best placed to outline the reasons for the objection on this application. There were no further questions for Licensing, and the Chair invited representations from the Applicant. The Applicant addressed the sub committee by stating that other nearby venues that included other food establishments and a Public House within the vicinity that generated a lot of noise from music and patrons that operate until 2:00am and that commented that his business would not create any additional noise. The Applicant proposed mitigation measures, which included staff presence from 1am to deal with dispersal of individuals, low or no music after 11:00pm, automatic door closure, and regular litter sweeps outside would be undertaken within 15 minutes of closing, the Committee were also advised that the applicant would willingly apply for planning permission if the licence was granted. The Chair thanked the Applicant and all parties present, were invited to ask questions. A Member sought confirmation on what the permitted operating hours were currently for the business. The Applicant confirmed that they currently operate from 5pm to 11pm, Monday to Sunday. The Chair queried what were the differences between this application and other late-night venues, specifically regarding days of operation. The Applicant acknowledged that other venues were not open until 2:00am every day but offered to accept binding conditions to mitigate any concerns. The Applicant was asked to confirm why no noise assessment had been undertaken and provided to the Council. The Applicant confirmed that no noise assessment had been provided, as he was unaware of the requirement, but he had submitted evidence with videos showing the noise that typically comes from a nearby pub as a comparison. Mr Awais commented that the business was using the chimney to exhaust fumes from the shop and that this noise was not as loud as the noise coming from the Public House. The Senior Licensing Officer interjected and referred back to a previous question raised in relation to confirmed that he had checked the records and could confirm that in relation to the permitted hours of operation, planning permission restricts operation to 9am to 11pm, Monday to Saturday, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The Chair reiterated that the Applicant did not have permission to operate on Sundays. The Applicant was not aware of this and confirmed that he would contact the planning department to apply to vary the permission. There were no further questions for the Applicant, and the Chair invited the Environmental Health Officer to introduce her representations. The Environmental Health Pollution Team Officer introduced herself and outlined her objection to the application, citing concerns that the premises could not operate during the requested late-night hours without causing public nuisance, particularly due to noise from the extraction system to the rear of the premises also noise from customer activity, given the close proximity of residential properties to the rear of the business. It was noted that the absence of a noise assessment and lack of prior consultation with Environmental Health added to the concerns of the Officer. Members were advised that the only submissions from the applicant was videos of noise from the nearby public house, which did not address the specific noise concerns for this premises and the lack of consultation from the applicant. Reference to planning restrictions based on residential amenity was also a big concern due to the closeness to the residential properties. The Licensing Manager sought clarification from the Officer as to whether the applicants proposed mitigation measures would address any of her concerns raised in the objections. The Officer confirmed that the proposed mitigation measures would not address her concerns. The key issues were the noise from the extraction equipment, which requires a formal noise assessment, and the impact of customer and delivery activity on Stockland Street. Members were informed that it was emphasised that these concerns would remain without proper evidence and assessment. The Applicant sought confirmation on what was the definition of ‘neighbour’ and asked whether other late-night refreshment venues had submitted noise assessments. The Environmental Health Officer explained that the premises was uniquely close to residential properties unlike the other venues and reiterated that the lack of a noise assessment for this application was a key issue. She did not confirm whether other venues had submitted noise assessments but emphasised that each application was considered on its own merits and location. The Environmental Health Officer commented that there would be additional noise from delivery drivers and commented that Stockland Street was a dead-end road and this would cause more noise issues for residents if they were to drive into that street to collect food for deliveries. The applicant confirmed that the delivery drivers and people picking up their orders would not be using Stockland Street to park their vehicles to collect deliveries they would use Cardiff Road as at that time of there would be plenty of parking available on Cardiff Road. The Applicant also stated that following the notices displayed on site for 40 days there had been no objections from residents or members of the public. Members were told that when the premises was closed staff remained to clean and leave at approximately 1am and there was no evidence of any additional noise being created and no complaints had been received. Clarification was sought by the Chair as to when planning had been granted for this premise. The Licensing Officer confirmed that planning permission was last granted on the premises on 23rd June 2020. The Applicant confirmed that he took over the business in May 2025. The Chair sought any further comments from the Environmental Health Officer, The Officer stated that without the noise assessment there was no evidence for her to have confidence that the business could be run without compromising the licensing objectives. There were no further questions for Environmental Health Pollution Officer, the Chair thanked the officer. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. The Chair confirmed there were no further questions and invited all parties to sum up. In closing the Licensing Manager asked Members to consider all the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting, and all Licensing guidance when making their decision. The Sub Committee were reminded of the need to consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives particularly the prevention of public nuisance and whether the applicant would be able to meet the same. The Environmental Health Officer concluded that in the absence of a noise assessment and with the premises proximity to residential properties, she could not support the application and her objection remained. The Applicant had nothing further to add. The Chair thanked all parties for their submissions and handed over to the Legal Advisor to explain the procedure. 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 10:37am to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee (“the Committee”) regarding the hearing held on 3rd November 2025 in respect of the Determination of Premises Licence Application for the Philly Grill, which sort to provide Late Night Refreshment, Monday to Sunday 23:00 – until 02: 00. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee had regard to the licensing objectives. There were no representations regarding public safety, prevention of crime and disorder or the protection of children from harm. The single objection received from the Responsible Authority (Environmental Health) related to the prevention of public nuisance. As stated within the Council Statement of Licensing Policy, matters giving rise to ‘public nuisance’ are mainly accepted to include issues relating to noise, light pollution, odour, and litter. The Licensing officer addressed the Committee and summarised the application, highlighted the main points of the report and pointed members to the Licensing recommendation, which was to refuse the application. The applicant then addressed the Committee. He explained that there are other premises in the area that operate until 2am, Charcoal Grill and PizzaGoGo. He also explained that the Kings Arms is located on the opposite side of the road, and this pub also generates a lot of noise. He explained that he was seeking a small extension to opening hours and would mitigate the concerns around public nuisance. He explained that from 1am a member of staff would be present to disperse customers to prevent congregating in and outside of the door. The doors would be closed from 11pm to contain noise and any music switched off, and there would be a litter sweep. The applicant also highlighted that he had advertised the proposed change and there had been no objections from any of the residents in Stockland Street. He also explained that Licensing and Planning were different processes and if successful in getting the variation he would apply for variation of the planning restrictions. During the hearing it was clarified that the current planning permission did not permit opening on a Sunday, which the applicant was not aware of, confirming that he currently opens from 5pm – 11pm on a Sunday. The objections from the Environmental Health officer referred to the noise that would be created from the extraction system. The chimney is located at the rear of the premises which backs onto Stockland Street, a residential area. The officer explained that the background noise may have a larger impact during the early hours of the morning when the ambient noise levels are low. She also highlighted noise from delivery drivers and other drivers collecting orders who may use Stockland Street, which is a closed off street. The officer conceded that other premises nearby open until 2am but pointed out that these premises were both located further up the road and were not as close to residential premises as this one. The officer also confirmed that the Kings Arms was a hot spot and may give rise to late night noise and this should not be added to. The officer also highlighted the planning restrictions in place at the premises and the reason for those restrictions were to protect residential amenity. The Environmental Health officer indicated that she did not feel that the proposed measures from the applicant were sufficient to allay her concerns regarding public nuisance. She explained that engagement from the applicant had been limited, and that she would have liked to have seen a noise assessment prepared by a reputable acoustic expert, which would have outlined the likely noise levels from the extended opening hours. The Committee did not give any weight to the comment from the Environmental Health officer that they did not want to ‘add to the noise’ already there, as the Committee did not feel that this was the correct way to approach the decision, which had to be based on whether the licensing objectives would be promoted. The Committee accepted the representations of the Environmental Health officer that there would be additional noise caused by the extraction equipment into the early hours, and there would be noise from patrons and vehicles collecting food, and that this would potentially give rise to a public nuisance. The Committee considered whether the mitigation proposed by the applicant was sufficient to address these concerns and promote the relevant licensing objective and were of the view that insufficient information had been provided. They agreed that there had been limited engagement from the applicant on the issue of prevention of public nuisance. He had not provided a noise assessment report from an acoustic expert as suggested by the Responsible Authority, and although the applicant had proposed some measures to prevent public nuisance, the Committee did not feel that these measures would be sufficient. There was nothing in the proposals from the applicant as to how noise from the extraction system would be mitigated, or what steps would be taken to address concerns regarding vehicles in the early hours. Therefore, based on the information presented to them the Committee concluded unanimously to refuse the application for a premises licence, to facilitate late night refreshment. The Applicant has 21 days from receiving written notification of this decision to appeal to the Gwent Magistrates Court.
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.