The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning an application for a Premises Licence Variation. The Hearing Panel considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended, as well as the relevant legislation.

The applicant addressed the Hearing Panel, noting their understanding of the objections received. An incident had occurred outside of the Premises and the applicant had been unable to provide CCTV. This was due to an electrical issue which affected around 36 devices at the Premises, one of those being CCTV recording. It was when GMP officers arrived that the applicant had realised the recordings were not working. Other than this, there had been no issues at the Premises. The applicant had other Premises too where there had been no issues. The applicant had applied for additional hours to help the business.

GMP noted that the electrical fault had occurred in September, yet GMP officers did not attend the Premises until 6 November, so queried if the Premises had been without CCTV for two months. Queries were also raised regarding how often the applicant checked if the CCTV was recording and if any additional conditions had been proposed for the extra hours applied for. The applicant accepted that CCTV recording had not been working for two months and that they got it fixed as soon as they realised. The live CCTV feed was working in this time. As there had been no incidents prior to this, the applicant had not checked if the CCTV was recording since it was installed. They had checked around a week before but when they could not access the recordings, thought they were doing something wrong rather than the system being faulty therefore booked for the company to come and look. In terms of extra conditions, the applicant had already doubled their CCTV coverage from 16 to 32 cameras. The applicant had also employed an extra member of security staff. The applicant stated that they had wanted to work with the Responsible Authorities but felt the opportunity had not been available prior to the hearing. They thought they had provided the extra conditions to the Premises Licensing team however this was not received by GMP or LOOH.

The panel queried how often CCTV was now being checked, how the applicant would ensure any CCTV faults in the future were fixed immediately and sought clarity on the hours applied for. The applicant stated that the CCTV was now checked every day. If there was a fault with the CCTV, the applicant would receive a notification on their phone through the app. The applicant would then need to inform the company who would come out to immediately fix it.

LOOH addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that this was an application for increased hours, yet no additional conditions had been proposed. They felt there was a possibility for public nuisance to be increased in this area. There had already been noise complaints received in this area. LOOH had received reports of Shisha smoking at the Premises which was to be investigated. They noted that this raised the possibility that the Premises may be in breach of the Health Act 2006.

The applicant questioned whether the noise complaints received were about their Premises. LOOH confirmed that they were not and during a visit this had been confirmed.

GMP addressed the Hearing Panel, noting their concerns that additional hours may undermine the Licensing Objectives. An incident had occurred outside the Premises where a young lady had been assaulted. Due to the faulty CCTV, GMP were unable to progress their investigation as they had no images of the incident. GMP were concerned that the CCTV had not been checked before this to be certain it was working. GMP had concerns that no additional hours had been proposed.

GMP summed up that, whilst they may not be opposed to an increase in hours in the future, given the recent incident they would like to see a period where the Premises met all their conditions first.

LOOH had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

The applicant summed up by stating that they had worked hard to get everything in place and had always been open with the Responsible Authorities. This was not their first restaurant and there had been no issues at their other restaurant. The applicant noted that it was not the fault of the Premises that the CCTV recording had stopped working, it was due to an electrical fault.

In reaching its decision, the Panel has also considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act as well as the licensing objectives. The panel accepted that the applicant had not put forward any further conditions, however they were satisfied that they had gone beyond their current conditions without this by doubling their CCTV coverage as well as hiring an extra member of security staff. The panel accepted that the fault with the CCTV was caused by a third party. Whilst the panel had concerns that the CCTV recordings had not been checked, they understood that there had been no incidents in that time requiring checking. The panel accepted that the problem had been fixed, with mitigation measures in place against any further faults with the CCTV.

Decision

To grant the variation application with the following amendments to hours:

Supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises only:

Monday to Wednesday: Noon to Midnight

Thursday to Sunday: 10.00 to 03.30

Provision of Late-Night Refreshment:

Monday to Wednesday: 23:00 to midnight

Thursday to Sunday: 23:00 to 04:00

Provision of Regulated Entertainment:

Monday to Wednesday: Noon to Midnight

Thursday: Noon to 03:30

Friday to Sunday: 09:00 to 03:30

Opening Hours

Monday to Wednesday: Noon to Midnight

Thursday: Noon to 04:00

Friday to Sunday: 09:00 to 04:00.