Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2000, particularly those identified in the agenda item, and paragraph 2.21, to which it had been referred by counsel for the applicants it was: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Responsible Authorities and the Applicant. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had made the following findings. • No real evidence of any significance has been placed before the Su-Committee either verbally or in writing of pre-existing crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour at the Tesco store car park. In particular no real evidence has been produced by the police of such problems. • The proposed premises was in proximity to an area identified in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as a crime and disorder hotspot and is close to residential premises. • The applicants had accepted the additional licence conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities. • The Responsible Authorities do not object to the granting of the application, subject to those licence conditions. • The Sub-Committee had recently granted a licence for another McDonalds elsewhere in the County on the same licence conditions. • No real evidence had been placed before the Sub-Committee demonstrating that those licence conditions had been insufficient to promote the licensing objectives at that other location. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had attached weight to the views of the responsible authorities as set out in the agenda pack and (in the case of the Licensing Authority) at the hearing as well. Whilst acknowledging that the concerns expressed by members of the public in relation to this application were genuine and heartfelt, the Sub-Committee was bound by strict legal requirements when determining applications under the Licensing Act. Issues of need or planning requirements were not matters that the Sub-Committee was able to take into account and the Members noted that it must not duplicate other statutory regimes when determining a premises licence application. The Sub-Committee also noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if an application is granted, which were not supported by real evidence, were not matters that it could properly take into account. The Sub-Committee considered that the evidence placed before it by local residents, was not sufficient to support the concerns and fears that they had raised, or to overcome the weight that it must attach to the views of the responsible authorities. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, and based on the evidence placed before it, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that to grant the application subject to the agreed licence conditions would not undermine the Licensing objectives and that those agreed conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the issues raised by the application. Whilst falling outside the scope of the committee’s formal decision, the Sub-Committee noted the commitment made by the representative of McDonalds to work with local litter picks operating in the vicinity of the premises and urged the applicants to follow through with that commitment.
There were no declarations of personal interest.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2000, particularly those identified in the agenda item, and paragraph 2.21, to which it had been referred by counsel for the applicants it was: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Responsible Authorities and the Applicant. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had made the following findings. • No real evidence of any significance has been placed before the Su-Committee either verbally or in writing of pre-existing crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour at the Tesco store car park. In particular no real evidence has been produced by the police of such problems. • The proposed premises was in proximity to an area identified in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as a crime and disorder hotspot and is close to residential premises. • The applicants had accepted the additional licence conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities. • The Responsible Authorities do not object to the granting of the application, subject to those licence conditions. • The Sub-Committee had recently granted a licence for another McDonalds elsewhere in the County on the same licence conditions. • No real evidence had been placed before the Sub-Committee demonstrating that those licence conditions had been insufficient to promote the licensing objectives at that other location. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had attached weight to the views of the responsible authorities as set out in the agenda pack and (in the case of the Licensing Authority) at the hearing as well. Whilst acknowledging that the concerns expressed by members of the public in relation to this application were genuine and heartfelt, the Sub-Committee was bound by strict legal requirements when determining applications under the Licensing Act. Issues of need or planning requirements were not matters that the Sub-Committee was able to take into account and the Members noted that it must not duplicate other statutory regimes when determining a premises licence application. The Sub-Committee also noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if an application is granted, which were not supported by real evidence, were not matters that it could properly take into account. The Sub-Committee considered that the evidence placed before it by local residents, was not sufficient to support the concerns and fears that they had raised, or to overcome the weight that it must attach to the views of the responsible authorities. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, and based on the evidence placed before it, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that to grant the application subject to the agreed licence conditions would not undermine the Licensing objectives and that those agreed conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the issues raised by the application. Whilst falling outside the scope of the committee’s formal decision, the Sub-Committee noted the commitment made by the representative of McDonalds to work with local litter picks operating in the vicinity of the premises and urged the applicants to follow through with that commitment.
The Legal Services Manager briefed all present on the procedure for the meeting, which had been convened to consider an application received from McDonald’s Restaurant Limited for a premises licence to allow: Late Night Refreshment - Monday to Sunday 23:00 - 05:00, on and off the premises. Opening Hours - Monday to Sunday 05:00 - 05:00 The application had been put before the Sub-Committee, following receipt of numerous representations regarding the proposed operation of the premises in relation to noise, anti-social behaviour and concerns over the management of the increase in litter. The Sub-Committee noted the following documentation was attached to the report:- Appendix A – The original Review Application; Appendix B – Licensing Authority Representation; Appendix C – Dyfed Powys Police Representation; Appendix D – Environmental Health Representation; Appendix E – Response from the Planning Department; Appendix F – Other Persons Representations. In addition to the above appendices, supplementary information was published and circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting which had included the following information:- 1. McDonalds – Anti-Social Behaviour Work Book; 2. McDonalds – Guide to Litter Control; 3. Plan showing the location of the McDonalds 4. McDonalds Ammanford Site Plan The Licensing Lead referred to his written representations, detailed in Appendix B to the report, detailing information regarding the application and his response thereto including, having regard to the relevant sections of the Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Local Licensing Policy. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning the Licensing Lead on his submission. The Legal Services Manager informed the Sub-Committee that the representations by the Dyfed Powys Police (Appendix C) had been agreed and therefore the Police representative was not in attendance. In addition, the representations by the Environmental Health Practitioner (Appendix D) had been agreed and therefore Mr Aled Morgan was not in attendance. The Sub-Committee thereupon received representations from interested parties objecting to the application for grant of a premises licence premises licence to allow ‘Late Night Refreshment Monday to Sunday 23:00 – 05:00; Opening Hours Monday to Sunday 05:00 – 05:00 on the grounds detailed in Appendix A to the report. Oral representations were received from the following local residents objecting to the application referring to their written representations within Appendix F: • Ms Zea Preston-Voile - as detailed in Appendix F (page 43 of the agenda pack); • Mr Paul Jockal - as detailed in Appendix F (page 45 of the agenda pack); • Ms Kylie Evans as detailed in Appendix F (page 60 of the agenda pack) • Ms Sian Hodder as detailed in Appendix F (page 59 of the agenda pack) In summary, the main areas of concern were in relation to:- · The McDonald’s site was surrounded by residential properties and should the application be granted there would be an increase throughout the night in: § Traffic Movement § Noise Pollution § Light Pollution § Sleep deprivation/Mental Health Issues. · No other establishment was open in Ammanford for 24hrs · Should the application be granted it would be detrimental to the well-being of local residents. · The site was making residents feel vulnerable. · Concerns about anti-social behaviour and the potential that McDonald’s customers would use private streets to eat their meals. · The 24hr fast food operation would have a detrimental effect on the health of residents and add to the obesity pandemic. · An increase of litter in the surrounding area. · Concerns that the original planning permission was granted on the basis of normal operating hours only. · Concerns about what provision would be in place to monitor light/noise pollution. All parties present were afforded the opportunity of questioning each party on the representations made. Mr Charalambides, Counsel for the applicant was afforded the opportunity of responding to the points raised, summarised as follows:- • That this was an application for extended hours only and many of the points raised would have been considered in the previously granted planning matters and therefore was not appropriate for consideration at this meeting. • Measures had been put in place to mitigate adverse impacts eg Anti-Social Behaviour Workbook, Litter Management Plan etc. • Monitoring of light/noise/litter would be carried out by the Franchisee by way of a continuous risk assessment. • The provision of CCTV was included. • Staff were trained to identify and act accordingly upon safeguarding matters. • The 3 Responsible Authorities had made their representations, none of which were opposed to the application. The Sub-Committee thereupon UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2000, particularly those identified in the agenda item, and paragraph 2.21, to which it had been referred by counsel for the applicants it was: UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Responsible Authorities and the Applicant. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had made the following findings. • No real evidence of any significance has been placed before the Su-Committee either verbally or in writing of pre-existing crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour at the Tesco store car park. In particular no real evidence has been produced by the police of such problems. • The proposed premises was in proximity to an area identified in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as a crime and disorder hotspot and is close to residential premises. • The applicants had accepted the additional licence conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities. • The Responsible Authorities do not object to the granting of the application, subject to those licence conditions. • The Sub-Committee had recently granted a licence for another McDonalds elsewhere in the County on the same licence conditions. • No real evidence had been placed before the Sub-Committee demonstrating that those licence conditions had been insufficient to promote the licensing objectives at that other location. In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee had attached weight to the views of the responsible authorities as set out in the agenda pack and (in the case of the Licensing Authority) at the hearing as well. Whilst acknowledging that the concerns expressed by members of the public in relation to this application were genuine and heartfelt, the Sub-Committee was bound by strict legal requirements when determining applications under the Licensing Act. Issues of need or planning requirements were not matters that the Sub-Committee was able to take into account and the Members noted that it must not duplicate other statutory regimes when determining a premises licence application. The Sub-Committee also noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if an application is granted, which were not supported by real evidence, were not matters that it could properly take into account. The Sub-Committee considered that the evidence placed before it by local residents, was not sufficient to support the concerns and fears that they had raised, or to overcome the weight that it must attach to the views of the responsible authorities. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, and based on the evidence placed before it, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that to grant the application subject to the agreed licence conditions would not undermine the Licensing objectives and that those agreed conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the issues raised by the application. Whilst falling outside the scope of the committee’s formal decision, the Sub-Committee noted the commitment made by the representative of McDonalds to work with local litter picks operating in the vicinity of the premises and urged the applicants to follow through with that commitment.
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.