|
In attendance and speaking at the hearing: Applicant: Mr T Kirubakaran
Representing the applicant: Ms S Tait
Note: At the start of this item, and with the consent of the Chairman, a copy of the applicant’s skeleton argument was circulated by his representative.
The meeting was adjourned from 10.05 am to 10.10 am to allow time to read this. The Sub Committee was requested to determine an application for a new premises licence at the above premises. The report before the Sub Committee set out the details of the application and included details of the two representations received.
The Licensing Officer presented the report and explained that the application was for the provision of late-night refreshments only, at the following times: Monday to Wednesday: 23h00 to 00h00
Thursday to Saturday: 23h00 to 01h00
Sunday: 23h00 to 23h30 Ms Tait was invited to present the application on behalf of Mr Kirubakaran, during the course of which the following points were noted: • The applicant premises was situated in the centre of town, between two establishments that remained open until the early hours, including a nightclub.
• There were two other late-night takeaways in the general vicinity.
• The applicant had consulted with Surrey Police before making the application and had followed their advice, including on the following points:
o the opening hours requested deliberately differed from those of the nightclub to avoid any bottlenecks at closing time
o doormen would be on duty in the evenings
o CCTV of both inside and outside the premises had been installed which could be remotely accessed
o bins would be provided outside to control litter
• Full details of the measures the applicant was proposing were contained within the Operating Schedule.
• The extractor fan on the premises had been fitted with a silence to reduce noise
• Only two representations had been received, despite it being a busy High Street, neither of which came from a resident living in close proximity to the premises.
• The flat above the premises was now occupied, but the tenant had made no complaints and the ceiling between the flat and shop had been soundproofed to control noise.
• The applicant was local to the area and both he and his wife would be involved in running the business, together with four employees.
The Chairman thanked the applicant and invited the Sub Committee to put questions.
The following points were noted: • The doormen would be on duty on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings. They would be externally appointed and SIA registered.
• The applicant was aware that, if the application was granted, the proposals contained in the operating schedule would form part of the conditions attached to the licence.
The Chairman thanked the applicant and his representative for their contributions and noted that they had no final submissions to make.
The Sub Committee adjourned to deliberate at 10.25 am and resumed at 10.52 am to give its decision. RESOLVED that the application for a premises licence be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR. Reasons for the decision 1. The Licensing & Regulatory Sub Committee has reviewed the report and paid attention to the submissions made by the applicant at the hearing. 2. It notes that only two representations have been received and that neither of these were from residents living in the vicinity. 3. The Sub Committee notes that the applicant has followed the advice of the Police and the licensing officer, and that they are proposing a number of positive steps within their operating schedule to support the licensing objectives. 4. The Sub Committee has had regard to the Licensing Objectives, and in particular Public Nuisance, Section 182 Licensing Act 2003 statutory guidance and its own Statement of Licensing Policy, in particular Section 8. 5. The Licensing Sub Committee gave due regard to the individual merits of this application, s149 Equality Act 2010, Human Rights/ECHR legislation in particular article 8 and article 1 First Protocol and the rules of natural justice
|