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 – Peri Peri Chicken, Unit 1, 16 Dynevor Street be rejected.
No apologies for absence were received as all Members were present.
No Declarations of Interest were made.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: The application for a New Premises Licence – Peri Peri Chicken, Unit 1, 16 Dynevor Street be rejected.
The Chair welcomed the applicant and their supporter, South Wales Police, Objectors and Officers to the Meeting Simon Jones then outlined the procedure that would be undertaken for the hearing. Rhys Furmage Licensing Officer then led the Committee in detail through the ‘Application for a New Premises Licence – Peri Peri Chicken, Unit 1, 16 Dynevor Street’ report. He also advised that in relation to Appendix C the premises had been incorrectly identified on the Plan and gave the correct location for the Premises. PC A Jenkins South Wales Police then referred the Committee to Appendix D of the report and gave details of why South Wales Police would be failing in their duty to keep people safe if they supported the application and therefore had no option other than to object to the application due to the adverse effect it would have on the Licensing Objective, specifically the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety. PC Jenkins also gave details of the number of potential patrons that could be in the area and the application would have an adverse effect on dispersal Policies, related Crime and Disorder problems, the large number of people and the high volume of traffic together with Taxi’s and Private Hire Vehicle and drive by vehicles, the risk to the safety of people at the scene as historically there were reports of people jumping on moving vehicles. These could not be attributed to the applicant but if the application were granted the situation could be exacerbated. No numbers had been given for SIA staff or how duties would be carried out as there could be a 1000 people in the area. Reference was made to the Guidance and how to promote the four Licensing Objectives and that this would compromise the Public Licensing Safety Objective. There were no extra road traffic restrictions and there was a risk with pedestrians crossing the road. There would be a detrimental effect due to public nuisance and referred to the nearby Care Home and the dwellings of elderly residents and that South Wales Police would be failing in their duty to keep people safe if they did not object to the application. Barrie Davies Director Asbriplanning then referred the Committee to the letter of objection, Appendix H of the report and gave detailed objections on behalf of his Client Mr M Ongun against the proposal. Objections were raised in relation to Crime and Disorder, anti social behaviour, Public Nuisance, Proximity of a Care Home and elderly residents, the proximity of Marsh House where it was proposed to accommodate vulnerable adults and the stress and disturbance to residents in the area. The application would encourage people to linger in the area leading to noise and disturbance. The Public Nuisance of littering leading to a vermin problem in the area due to discarded food waste in the car park. Other venues in the area closed between 2.00 am and 3.00 am and to open until 4.00 am would encourage people to remain an extra hour in the area. He stated that this application fell short of the three of the four Licensing Objectives and that his client maintained strong objections. Questions were then raised by the applicant in relation to the location of the Burger Van as it too was on the opposite side of the road. Simon Jones then asked for clarification from Mr Davies on how the location differentiated from that of his Client to the applicant. Mr Davies advised that his Client had a long track record and closed earlier and with the application premises being directly opposite another establishment there was a much greater risk in relation to Public Safety, Noise and Disturbance as the application premises was nearer to sensitive land uses. A Member then sought clarification on the opening hours of the Burger Van and if there had been any reported incidents to South Wales Police. PC Jenkins then referred to a two year period that was blank due to Covid. A Member then referred to litter and Food Waste and how could this be attributed to Peri Peri. Mr Davies then gave anecdotal evidence of observations that had been made and statements from nearby premises who had witnessed littering, food waste and rodent presence. A Member then enquired if the objector was saying that no one from the Burger Van was littering. Mr Davies advised that the Burger Van had been in operation since 2007 and his Client was very experienced and that he was restating what he had been told that were the observations of someone on the ground. The applicant advised that the Burger Van was trading through the day and there was also waste from this operation. Simon Jones then sought clarification in relation to the location of the Burger Van and were Customers buying food and eating in the car park. Mr Davies advised that there was a mix of activity as some Customers ate on the go whilst others went home. Customers could also sit in the car park. PC Jenkins then advised that the Burger Van was within the car park next to the boundary wall/fence and that the Van faced out onto the main road with the hatch on the boundary. Simon Jones then requested clarification from South Wales Police on the difference between the Burger Van and the application premises. PC Jenkins then advised that the Burger Van had been in situ since 2006 and that since this time the knowledge base and the four Licensing Objectives had developed and gave an example of this. Now Risks were assessed more deeply and that if the Burger Van were to apply today the Police would have the same concerns and for the same reasons. Carwyn Morris Highways Officers then referred to Appendix G in the report and outlined his objections in terms of Highway Safety due to the current issues in this location with Pedestrian safety and speeding vehicles and a new takeaway without the provision for cars to park safely and collect was not acceptable. Carwyn Morris also referred to a report of the Counter Terror Unit and that the road could not be closed and that if there were traffic calming measures in place they would not mitigate the risk. Due to the location the last thing needed was extra people congregating in the area and that it was a narrow footway and that people could spill onto the road and into traffic. He referred to the objections that had been covered by South Wales Police and would fully agree and support these objections. Simon Jones the enquired if the risk to the public would be greater at the application premises to the Burger Van. Carwyn Morris advised that the risk was greater purely to location as the footway was narrow and that if cars pulled up there was no where to park on the footway and there would be a lot of public around. Councillor Clive Jones then addressed the Committee on behalf of himself and Councillor L Minett Vokes Ward Members who were objecting to the application as outlined in Appendix I of the report. He referred to the report of the Police and the problems with litter in the area, the parking on double yellow lines, complaints from residents, the nearby Care Home, a busy junction, elderly residents living nearby and that to open until 4.00 am would exacerbate an already difficult and serious situation with the potential for 2000 people to be in the area. There were a series of issues and that the application would make serious matters much worst and that it was in a confined area and a real concern to Ward Members and residents. Garin Eldred Environmental Health Officer then referred to Appendix F in the report and gave details of his objection to the application as the objection was based on the Licensing Objective of Public Safety. He further advised that the applicant proposed to serve customers through the hatch window and that Dynevor Street was a busy area during the hours of the night time economy with heavy traffic until customers had left the area with a potential capacity of 1450 people. The area was extremely busy both with pedestrian and vehicle traffic and allowing customers to gather and queue outside Peri Peri on mass exodus from any of the Licensed venues would only exacerbate the current issues with the likelihood of queues spilling onto the main road as the pavement outside the venue was not particularly wide and there were no barriers in place. Due to the location of this premises, the granting of this Licence would undermine the Licensing Objective of public safety and if customers were lingering leading to noise and anti social issues. Jo Baber Licensing Officer then referred to Appendix E in the report and advised that on behalf of the Licensing Authority she objected to the application based on the Licensing Objective of Public Safety. Jo Baber also referred to queueing outside of the premises, heavy traffic in the area, the potential number of people in the area, pedestrian / vehicle safety, the allowing of gathering of people that could exacerbate the current safety issues and therefore the granting of the Licence would undermine the Licensing Objective of Public Safety. The applicant then advised that 4.00 am was an adjustable time and that the Burger Van was open until 2.30 am. People were coming to the street to visit venues and that there were similar numbers. The queue would be on land in front and the adjoining car park. The houses behind were a distance away and that it would be unfair to point all issues at Peri Peri. The premises closed at 11.00 pm and that people came through the car park and walked over from the van. Recording from the CCTV System at the premises was also provided to the Police for the area. Metal barriers could also be provided on the pavement and a walkway into the car park if it was acquired from the landlord. Simon Jones then requested clarification in relation to the erecting of barriers. Carwyn Morris then responded in detail and advised that it was not achievable due to the width of the footway and that the footway could not be widened and the carriageway could not be narrowed. Simon Jones then requested clarification in relation to door staff and was responded to by the applicant. Simon Jones then asked that if the applicant was prepared to concede on the hours being requested what would be the view of the Police and Officers on this. PC Jenkins then advised that there were already established pressures in the area and that this would be an added premises on the opposite side of the road and would exacerbate the potential for dangers highlighted in his initial submission and could make matters worst. Jo Baber also referred to venues in the area and the width of the pavement and could exacerbate the problem of safety issues. Carwyn Morris also agreed in relation to issue of congregation of people. Simon Jones then advised that the Committee would now consider the application and the decision would be provided to the applicant. The Chair then thanked all parties for attending the hearing. All parties then left the Meeting. After consideration of the Members it was Resolved that: The application for a New Premises Licence – Peri Peri Chicken, Unit 1, 16 Dynevor Street be rejected.
The Chair advised that there was no other business deemed urgent.
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.