The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed. Also enclosed further information from the applicant and their agent.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding a new Premises Licence application.

The Hearing Panel considered the written papers and oral representations of all parties, as well as the relevant legislation and guidance.

The Applicant’s Legal Representative addressed the Hearing Panel with reference to the premises falling within the Cumulative Impact Policy area.  He made reference to there being no complaints concerning litter and just one in connection with noise emanation from building work.  In respect of the representation made by the Licensing Out of Hours (LOOH) team concerning an alleged breach of licensing conditions arising from an unannounced visit, he explained that the transaction had taken place within the agreed hours and that customers were simply waiting for their order to be cooked.  In addition, he asked the Panel to note that on the visit, the LOOH officer witnessed two potential customers were denied entry  to the premises since that premises was closed.

In respect of local residents’ objections, the Representative asked the Panel to note the limited hours applied for in comparison to other Fireaway premises across the country, some of which were in similar policy areas who had granted later hours than  those the Applicant had requested. He addressed concerns around vehicle noise and outlined additional steps taken by the Applicant to reduce noise emanation as far as possible and asked to the Panel to note that premises’ target market was not the local student population. The Applicant then addressed the Hearing Panel on in respect of acoustic readings they had undertaken, citing that they had noise levels remained within similar levels of ambient noise in the area.  The Panel noted the assertion by the LOOH officer that those readings had not been taken on a calibrated, industry standard device.  They also noted local residents’ assertion that the acoustic readings were not taken on a week of typical noise in the area.

Objectors concerns centred around the impact of another late-night licence operating in the area and the impact on quality of life. They discussed the presumption to refuse such applications under the Cumulative Impact Policy where there was no variation in terms of local offer and a recognised impact on local residents had been established.  Objectors did not accept the Applicant’s assertions around the number of night time deliveries that were  anticipated (3 – 5 per hour) indicating that it was likely to be more and raised concerns about the impact on local residents in the immediate vicinity; they also indicated that branded packaging litter had been found locally which could be attributed to issues with local waste and recycling issues.  In addition, they did not accept that the steps outlined by the Applicant to reduce noise emanation from night time deliveries were sufficiently robust.

In reaching a decision, the Hearing Panel took into consideration 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 and the licensing objectives.  The Panel noted the application fell within the Cumulative Impact Policy area, however they accepted that the additional steps outlined by Applicant to reduce noise emanation from the premises were reasonable noted that a delivery-only service after 11pm formed part of the application.  They also took into consideration  that no complaints in respect of noise emanation had been received thus far.  In addition, the Panel was also satisfied that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact on the area.

Decision

To grant the licence as applied for, with additional conditions proposed by the applicant.