Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control. Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that their objections had subsequently been withdrawn. Members considered the objections made but felt the applicant had demonstrated that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application; subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control. Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that both parties had subsequently withdrawn their objections. They also noted that matters relating to commercial competition were not relevant to their determination. Members considered the objections raised by local residents but were satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. They acknowledged the concerns expressed in relation to litter and antisocial behaviour in the local area, but did not consider there to be sufficient evidence directly linking these issues to the applicant’s premises.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all of the evidence, submissions and written material, with regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, resolved to issue a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice, the effect of which was that the event was not authorised to proceed. Members considered the representation made by South Wales Police and were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that permitting this temporary event would undermine the licensing objectives. In reaching this decision, they placed weight on the evidence of previous breaches associated with the organiser’s premises licence and the likelihood of further breaches if this event were permitted, together with the heightened risks linked to the later hours sought in the TEN and additional concerns arising from its timing during Freshers’ Week, when younger students new to the city might be particularly vulnerable. Members were concerned that the combination of these factors created a significant risk of undermining the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder.
There were none.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control. Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that their objections had subsequently been withdrawn. Members considered the objections made but felt the applicant had demonstrated that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives.
Present: Applicant: Shabbir Ahmad Safraz Ibrahim The Application: An application to vary a Premises Licence had been received from Shabbir Ahmad in respect of Perilicious, 82 City Road, Roath, Cardiff, CF24 3DD. The licence currently permitted the following licensable activity: i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises: Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 23:00 hours The applicant had applied to add the following licensable activity: i) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors and outdoors): Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 05:00 hours The proposed opening hours of the premises were applied for as follows: Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 05:00 hours Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of the applicant, Mr Ibrahim explained that the application sought to extend the provision of late night refreshment to 11pm-5am from Monday to Sunday. He highlighted the withdrawal of objections from South Wales Police and Pollution Control following agreement of conditions with Mr Ahmad, and stressed that these conditions would be complied with. He acknowledged it was in a busy area and the objections received from local residents. Members asked how the applicant would seek to prevent delivery drivers leaving rubbish. The applicant responded that he didn’t use third party drivers and would employ his own, and he would ensure they received the appropriate training. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control. Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that their objections had subsequently been withdrawn. Members considered the objections made but felt the applicant had demonstrated that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application; subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control. Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that both parties had subsequently withdrawn their objections. They also noted that matters relating to commercial competition were not relevant to their determination. Members considered the objections raised by local residents but were satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. They acknowledged the concerns expressed in relation to litter and antisocial behaviour in the local area, but did not consider there to be sufficient evidence directly linking these issues to the applicant’s premises.
Present: Applicant: Karl Cuayzon (proposed DPS) Other Persons: Suzy Lloyd Ewen McAlpine The Application: An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from S&R Oriental and General Merchandise LP in respect of S&R Oriental, 14 Maryport Road, Penylan, Cardiff, CF23 5JX. The applicant had applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises. (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “A1 – Retail food shop for oriental and local dry and frozen consumables. Intend to be and off the premises service of alcohol”. (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Saturday: 08:30 to 21:30 hours Sunday: 12:00 to 20:30 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Saturday: 08:30 to 21:30 hours Sunday: 12:00 to 20:30 hours Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee as the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), Mr Cuayzon explained that he would be responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises and responding to any issues. He sought to adhere closely to the licensing objectives and had spoken to the police, in particular about how best to prevent crime and disorder. The police had advised comprehensive camera coverage and noted that one of the windows on the shop caused some glare in the summer, so an external camera had been implemented to provide extra cover of the outside area. He noted that in four months of operating the premises had received lots of positive feedback and wanted to continue contributing to community safety. They would enforce a Challenge 25 policy and refuse the sale of alcohol to people who appeared intoxicated, noting down any refusals of sale in their logbook. Employees would be trained to identify antisocial behaviour and how to respond appropriately. He also noted that there would be no sale of individual cans or small highly carbonated alcoholic drinks. Instead, they sought to offer mostly speciality Asian drinks that customers could take home and enjoy with their meal. No alcohol would be consumed on the premises and would not be placed within 4 metres of the exit to discourage shoplifting. He added that the premises had good relationships with the businesses and properties around it. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, Mr Cuayzon explained that the drinks fridges could only be accessed with the help of an employee, and that the police had been happy with the CCTV setup in place. Responding to questions from interested others, Mr Cuayzon explained that the premises would seek to sell local and speciality drinks, for example oriental brands like Asahi and Tiger. He also clarified that the external camera covered the outside of the store, while a camera inside also covered some of the outside through the glass. Interested Other Representations Addressing the Sub Committee as a local resident, Ewen McAlpine emphasised that the shop had been well-run and well-received by the local community in its current form. That particular row of shops had seen a lot of turnover and it was a hard place for businesses to succeed, so he felt it was important to avoid shops providing similar services. A Premier two doors up offered a wide range of alcohol already, including speciality Asian drinks, and it could hurt both businesses to compete directly. Mr McAlpine also noted that there was a lot of antisocial behaviour in the area, which Premier were generally good at managing. Litter associated with alcohol was an issue, and broken glass was especially concerning to him as a dog owner. He also felt that allowing a licence that had only recently been granted to change to an alcohol licence set an unwanted precedent. The Chair clarified that questions of distinction and competition between shops were not for the Sub Committee to determine. Addressing the Sub Committee as a local resident, Suzy Lloyd explained her concerns about the prospect of more alcohol being sold in the area. It was already a problem area for antisocial behaviour including public intoxication and drug dealing, and in addition to the residents nearby there were also a lot of schoolchildren who passed through it on their way home. Summing Up The local residents summarised that their objections were due to the potential for increased antisocial behaviour in an area where this was already a problem. Littering was a persistent issue, in particular broken glass that could harm pets. They also highlighted the precedent of allowing the premises to change its licence to sell alcohol so quickly. The applicant acknowledged the points made and emphasised that he intended provide a safe environment for the community to enjoy. The premises sought to provide a distinct offer for speciality food and drink that people could take home and enjoy, and he did not feel that it would contribute to antisocial behaviour like littering or loitering. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application; subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control. Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that both parties had subsequently withdrawn their objections. They also noted that matters relating to commercial competition were not relevant to their determination. Members considered the objections raised by local residents but were satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. They acknowledged the concerns expressed in relation to litter and antisocial behaviour in the local area, but did not consider there to be sufficient evidence directly linking these issues to the applicant’s premises.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all of the evidence, submissions and written material, with regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, resolved to issue a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice, the effect of which was that the event was not authorised to proceed. Members considered the representation made by South Wales Police and were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that permitting this temporary event would undermine the licensing objectives. In reaching this decision, they placed weight on the evidence of previous breaches associated with the organiser’s premises licence and the likelihood of further breaches if this event were permitted, together with the heightened risks linked to the later hours sought in the TEN and additional concerns arising from its timing during Freshers’ Week, when younger students new to the city might be particularly vulnerable. Members were concerned that the combination of these factors created a significant risk of undermining the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder.
There was one urgent item: Temporary Event Notice – The Everest Restaurant & Bar The Chair noted that South Wales Police had submitted representations regarding a Temporary Event Notice. Present: Responsible Authorities: PC Jason Jones (South Wales Police) The licensee was not in attendance. A Temporary Event Notification (TEN) was received on 10th September 2025 from Dip Prasad Pun for authorisation of a temporary event at The Everest Restaurant & Bar, Unit 8, The Friary, CF10 3FA. The notification was in respect of an event due to take place between 00:30 and 06:00 on Thursday 25th – Sunday 28th September. Responsible Authority Representations Speaking on behalf of South Wales Police, PC Jason Jones highlighted the statistics provided which showed 73 offences occurring within the Friary area, where there were only three premises. This was more than any other area besides St Mary’s Street and Park Place. It was the police’s view that allowing a temporary event in this area would lead to a greater likelihood of further issues occurring, and at a freshers’ event a large proportion of the attendees would be 18 year olds, adding further risk of alcohol related harm to the night-time economy. He explained that South Wales Police did not have confidence in the premises to manage an event like this for a number of reasons. The premises had been trading for 5 weeks, having been granted a licence 11 months ago, but a number of breaches had been observed and the DPS had received a final written warming on 11th September for non-compliance with the current licence. He noted that the licensee had previously applied for a nightclub bar in the same location in 2024, which the Sub Committee refused. Instead, he had opened a restaurant providing Nepalese food, but this did not seem to be the business he was conducting. Licensing officers had visited the premises and observed that it was heavily drink-focused and inconsistent with the agreed operating schedule. While a TEN was not related to a premises licence, this affected the police’s confidence in management to run such an event, particular with the added risk of a late terminal hour. As such, South Wales Police were asking the Sub Committee to refuse the TEN and issue a counter notice in the public interest. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all of the evidence, submissions and written material, with regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, resolved to issue a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice, the effect of which was that the event was not authorised to proceed. Members considered the representation made by South Wales Police and were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that permitting this temporary event would undermine the licensing objectives. In reaching this decision, they placed weight on the evidence of previous breaches associated with the organiser’s premises licence and the likelihood of further breaches if this event were permitted, together with the heightened risks linked to the later hours sought in the TEN and additional concerns arising from its timing during Freshers’ Week, when younger students new to the city might be particularly vulnerable. Members were concerned that the combination of these factors created a significant risk of undermining the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.