Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Licensing Sub Committee (ceased to operate 10/04/2017) Minutes

Date:
Wednesday, 4th January, 2012
Time:
02.00 p.m.
Place:
Council Chamber, Town Hall, High Street, Stockton on Tees, TS18 1AJ
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor Woodhead, Councillor Perry, Councillor Mrs Nelson
Officers:
S Mills, P Edwards(DNS) and J Nertney(LDS)
In Attendance:
Mr Darwish (in attendance) and was assisted in presenting his application by Mr Ghalleb ,Mr Karim (in attendance) and was assisted in presenting his application by Mr Ghalleb, PC Iceton (represented by Mr Hill, Barrister), Mr Snowdon, Environmental Health Manager and Mrs Landles, Environmental Health Officer.
Apologies for absence:
None
Item Description Decision
Public
LSC
28/11
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
 
LSC
29/11
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
LSC
30/11
THE CEDARS, 30 YARM LANE, STOCKTON ON TEES - APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION OF A PREMISE LICENCE UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003
RESOLVED the application for the hours requested be refused.
LSC
31/11
CASSANOVA'S, 28 YARM LANE, STOCKTON ON TEES - APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION OF A PREMISE LICENCE UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003
RESOLVED the application for the hours requested be refused.
LSC
32/11
GINO'S, 18-20 YARM LANE, STOCKTON ON TEES - APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION OF A PREMISE LICENCE UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003
RESOLVED the application for the hours requested be refused.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LSC
28/11
RESOLVED that Councillor Woodhead be appointed Chair for this meeting only.
LSC
29/11
There were no interests declared.
LSC
30/11
The Committee gave consideration to the report, the application and the representations which had been received. A representation had been made by Cleveland Police and the Environmental Health Section.

The application was for the premises to be licensed for the sale of late night refreshment between 3.00 and 4.00 a.m. on a Friday and Saturday evening. Mr Mehmet was not in attendance at the meeting.

Mr Hill on behalf of Cleveland Police stated that the Police objected to the application in it's entirety. Mr Hill referred the Committee to the witness statement of PC Johnson and bundle of evidence that had been provided. Mr Hill stated that CCTV footage was available to show Mr Mehmet's premise opening outside the current licensed terminal hour.

Live evidence was called from PC Iceton who explained the statistical evidence to the Committee.

The evidence called showed that the owner of the business had operated the premise outside the permitted hours. This had occurred on many occasions and that he had continued to open outside the licensed terminal hour even after receiving a written warning from the Licensing Section. In the opinion of Cleveland Police this showed the operator of the premise had a complete disregard for the law.

The Police had concerns over the ability of the owner of the premise to fulfill their legal obligations and ensure that the licensing objectives were not undermined. In addition the Police also submitted that the location of this premise was in a recognized hotspot and was fairly unique given the large concentration of takeaway premises. In the opinion of Cleveland Police if the hours for this premise were extended the Licensing objectives would be undermined, would lead to a further drain on Police resources and result in members of the public remaining in the town centre until a later hour with the potential for crime and disorder.

The Environmental Health Officer had submitted a representation as they had concerns over public nuisance. Mr Snowdon stated that they have similar concerns to the Police. There was not an issue with noise from customers in the premises but there was public nuisance when customers leave the premise whether from noise or litter.

The Committee noted that the application before them was to vary the licence for the provision of Late Night Refreshment for the following hours:-

- Friday and Saturday: from 3:00 to 04:30 hours

The Committee were satisfied that there were no conditions which could be attached to the licence which would address the evidence given by Cleveland Police. The Committee were satisfied from the Polices evidence that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the application was granted. The statistical evidence showed that this was a hot spot area for crime and disorder and that the peak times were a Friday and Saturday evening. The Committee were satisfied that if the application was granted the licensing objectives would be undermined.

The Committee noted that the applicant had shown either a negligent or wilful disregard for his legal responsibilities in operating the premise. Evidence before the Committee showed that the premise had operated on a number of occasions in breach of the law. After considering the evidence and on the balance of probabilities the premises opened in breach of their licence on a weekly basis. The Committee were of the view that the applicant should be able to demonstrate that he can operate the premise legally before they can be satisfied that he would not undermine the licensing objectives.
LSC
31/11
The Committee gave consideration to the report, the application and the representations which had been received. A representation had been made by Cleveland Police and the Environmental Health Section.

The application was for the premises to be licensed for the sale of late night refreshment between 3 and 4.30 a.m. on a Friday and Saturday evening. Mr Ghalleb stated that it was custom and practice for the takeaway shops on Yarm Lane to open till 4.30 a.m. as there was business between 3 a.m. and 4.30 a.m. Mr Ghalleb stated that he believed this had been happening for 15 years.

Mr Ghalleb stated that if the premises was required to close at 3 a.m. then they may struggle to pay their staff wages.

Mr Darwish was asked question by the representative for Cleveland Police. Mr Darwish confirmed that he was aware that the terminal hour for his licence was 3 a.m. but that he opened until 4 a.m. as there was still custom at that hour. Mr Darwish stated that he had purchased the business in 2006 and that he had lost his licence but did not know when. Mr Darwish stated that he was unaware of the legal requirement to display his licence at the premise.

Mr Hill on behalf of Cleveland Police stated that the Police objected to the application in it's entirety. Mr Hill referred the Committee to the witness statement of PC Johnson and bundle of evidence that had been provided. Mr Hill stated that CCTV footage was available to show Mr Darwish's premise opening outside the terminal hour but as Mr Darwish had confirmed he opened and supplied hot food outside of the current licensed terminal hour he did not propose to show the footage to the Committee.

Live evidence was called from PC Iceton who explained the statistical evidence to the Committee.

The evidence called showed that the owner of the business had operated the premise outside the permitted hours. This had occurred on many occasions and that he had continued to open outside the licensed terminal hour even after receiving a written warning from the Licensing Section. In the opinion of Cleveland Police this showed the operator of the premise had a complete disregard for the law.

The Police had concerns over the ability of the owner of the premise to fulfill their legal obligations and ensure that the licensing objectives were not undermined. In addition the Police also submitted that the location of this premise was in a recognized hotspot and was fairly unique given the large concentration of takeaway premises. In the opinion of Cleveland Police if the hours for this premise were extended the Licensing objectives would be undermined, would lead to a further drain on Police resources and result in members of the public remaining in the town centre until a later hour with the potential for crime and disorder.

Mr Darwish was given an opportunity to ask question of the Police's witness.

The Environmental Health Officer had submitted a representation as they had concerns over public nuisance. Mr Snowdon stated that they have similar concerns to the Police. There was not an issue with noise from customers in the premises but there was public nuisance when customers leave the premise whether from noise or litter.

The Committee noted that the application before them was to vary the licence for the provision of Late Night Refreshment for the following hours:-

- Friday and Saturday: from 3:00 to 04:30 hours

The Committee were satisfied from the Polices evidence that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the application was granted. The statistical evidence showed that this was a hot spot area for crime and disorder and that the peak times were a Friday and Saturday evening. The Committee were satisfied that if the application was granted the licensing objectives would be undermined.

The Committee noted that the applicant had shown either a negligent or wilful disregard for his legal responsibilities in operating the premise. Evidence before the Committee showed that the premise had operated on a number of occasions in breach of the law. From the evidence given by Mr Darwish the premises opened in breach of their licence on a weekly basis. The Committee were of the view that the applicant should be able to demonstrate that he can operate the premise legally before they can be satisfied that he would not undermine the licensing objectives.
LSC
32/11
The Committee gave consideration to the report, the application and the representations which had been received. A representation had been made by Cleveland Police and the Environmental Health Section.

The application was for the premises to be licensed for the sale of late night refreshment between 3 and 4.30 a.m. on a Friday and Saturday evening. Mr Ghalleb stated that it was custom and practice for the takeaway shops on Yarm Lane to open till 4.30 a.m. as there was business between 3 a.m. and 4.30 a.m. Mr Ghalleb stated that he believed this had been happening for 15 years.

Mr Ghalleb stated that if the premises was required to close at 3 a.m. then they may struggle to pay their staff wages.

Mr Karim did not give any evidence to the Committee

Cleveland Police

Mr Hill on behalf of Cleveland Police stated that the Police objected to the application in it's entirety. Mr Hill referred the Committee to the witness statement of PC Johnson and bundle of evidence that had been provided. Mr Hill stated that CCTV footage was available to show Mr Karim's premise opening outside the current licensed terminal hour. Mr Hill stated that the Police were called to the premise on Saturday 08 October 2011 at a time after the terminal hour when there was a disturbance on the premises with an allegation that a male wanted to fight the owner.

Live evidence was called from PC Iceton who explained the statistical evidence to the Committee.

The evidence called showed that the owner of the business had operated the premise outside the permitted hours. This had occurred on many occasions and that he had continued to open outside the licensed terminal hour even after receiving a written warning from the Licensing Section. In the opinion of Cleveland Police this showed the operator of the premise had a complete disregard for the law.

The Police had concerns over the ability of the owner of the premise to fulfill their legal obligations and ensure that the licensing objectives were not undermined. In addition the Police also submitted that the location of this premise was in a recognized hotspot and was fairly unique given the large concentration of takeaway premises. In the opinion of Cleveland Police if the hours for this premise were extended the Licensing objectives would be undermined, would lead to a further drain on Police resources and result in members of the public remaining in the town centre until a later hour with the potential for crime and disorder.

Mr Karim was given an opportunity to ask question of the Police's witness.

The Environmental Health Officer had submitted a representation as they had concerns over public nuisance. Mr Snowdon stated that they had similar concerns to the Police. There was not an issue with noise from customers in the premises but there was public nuisance when customers leave the premise whether from noise or litter.

The Committee noted that the application before them was to vary the licence for the provision of Late Night Refreshment for the following hours:-

- Friday and Saturday: from 3:00 to 04:30 hours

The Committee were satisfied that there were no conditions which could be attached to the licence which would address the evidence given by Cleveland Police. The Committee were satisfied from the Polices evidence that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the application was granted. The statistical evidence showed that this was a hot spot area for crime and disorder and that the peak times were a Friday and Saturday evening. The Committee were satisfied that if the application was granted the licensing objectives would be undermined.

The Committee noted that the applicant had shown either a negligent or wilful disregard for his legal responsibilities in operating the premise. Evidence before the Committee showed that the premise had operated on a number of occasions in breach of the law. After considering the evidence and on the balance of probabilities the premises opened in breach of their licence on a weekly basis. The Committee were of the view that the applicant should be able to demonstrate that he can operate the premise legally before they can be satisfied that he would not undermine the licensing objectives.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction