Agenda item

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory requests Members Consideration on an application to vary a premises licence made by Antonio Carlos Duarte Soares, for Sabura, 246 Dewsbury Road, Hunslet, Leeds, LS11 6JQ.

The report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory requested Members consideration of an application to vary a premises licence made by Antonio Carlos Duarte Soares, for Sabura, 246 Dewsbury Road, Hunslet, Leeds, LS11 6JQ.

Present at the meeting were:

• Antonio Carlos Duarte Soares – Applicant/Designated Premises Supervisor
• Vera Lucia Duarte Soares – Director of Sabura Ltd
• Tony Clarke – Applicant’s Representative/JMC Licensing Consultant
• Councillor Ed Carlisle – Hunslet and Riverside Elected Ward Member

The Legal Officer set out the procedure for the hearing. A request was made by the Applicant’s Representative for the Chair to allow an additional 5 minutes to make their submission to the Sub-Committee, which was denied.

The Licensing Officer presented the application providing the following details:

• The application was submitted to vary a premises licence made by Antonio Carlos Duarte Soares, for Sabura, 246 Dewsbury Road, Hunslet, Leeds, LS11 6JQ.
• The variation was to amend the plans to include the outdoor eating area at the front of the premises, to add conditions to the premises licence and to extend the hours of licensable activities.
• The amended hours proposed were to extend the hours for the Sale by Retail of Alcohol to Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 00:00 and Friday and Saturday 11:00 to 01:30 and the hours for Late Night Refreshment to Sunday to Thursday 23:00 to 23:30 and Friday and Saturday 23:00 to 00:00.
• The application had attracted representations from West Yorkshire Police (WYP), the Environmental Protection Team (EPT) and other persons. Those representations had been withdrawn following agreements being reached.
• Representations had been received from two Local Ward Councillors; however, one has been withdrawn following the applicant agreeing to reduce the hours for licensable activities. The other Local Ward Councillor representation remained outstanding for the Sub Committee’s consideration.
• The application had originally been considered at a Sub-Committee hearing on the 20^th of August 2024, however, without representation on behalf of the applicant present at the hearing, Councillor Carlisle had made an application to adjourn the hearing to allow further discussion to be had between himself and the applicant.
• A background of application for the premises was outlined as; the application for the grant of a premises licence was approved by the Licensing Authority in July 2019, then an application to vary the licence was submitted in February 2021 which sought to extend the hours for licensable activities and attracted representations, with the Sub-Committee resolving to grant the licence, subject to reducing the hours applied for and attaching additional conditions. Applications to transfer the licence to the current holder and to specify the current DPS were received by the Licensing Authority in July 2023 which were granted as applied for.
• A copy of the existing licence was available at appendix A, a copy of the variation application form was available at appendix B, details for the WYP, EPT agreements were available at appendix E and F, respectively.
• The representation and withdrawal agreement from Councillor P Wray was available at appendix G. details of Councillor E Carlisle’s representation and further correspondence were available at appendix H, including information regarding conversations held with the applicant and the Legal Representative to discuss proposed draft conditions and measures.

The applicant’s Legal Representative addressed the Sub-Committee providing the following information:

• The variation application and proposed operations were considered to support the licensing objectives and despite the original representations submitted by WYP, EPT and the two Ward Councillors, agreements, including stringent additional conditions, had been reached with all parties, except the outstanding objection from Councillor E Carlisle.
• Discussions had been held with Councillor Carlisle on the 10^th of September 2024 to address his concerns and suggest appropriate conditions, however, in a more recent email, Councillor Carlisle had further scrutinised the application and premises.
• There were 31 conditions on the existing licence and an additional 20 agreed for the proposed variation application from WYP, EPT and Councillor Wray. 5 conditions had been proposed to address Councillor Carlisle’s concerns, but it was felt that the additional 3 suggested by Councillor Carlisle were overly onerous on the premises, limited their business operations and would incur additional costs.
• The original licence that had been permitted in 2019, and the variation from 2021, were under a different owner and DPS, with the transfer of the licence taking place in September 2023.
• The Sub-Committee decision in 2021 to grant the variation with reduced hours and additional conditions had been to address issues occurring when the previous operator was in place and had been passed on to the new DPS. It was noted that the new DPS was a good operator and was happy to comply with the previously agreed conditions, as well as the proposed conditions of the variation that had been applied for.
• Despite best intentions and thorough discussions, it was surprising that Councillor Carlisle maintained his objection. The additional 3 conditions proposed by Councillor Carlisle were thought to overlap with already agreed conditions with responsible authorities, including many that addressed public nuisance which was the main concern outlined by Councillor Carlisle.
• Conditions relating to the prevention of public nuisance were already in place, with one specific to address noise complaints from a nearby, noise sensitive residential flat which had occurred under the previous owner.
• The noise limiter requested by Councillor Carlisle would incur a cost of approximately £1,000 and the applicant was already conducting regular noise checks, in line with existing conditions.
• Upon conducting noise monitoring, the applicant had noted there was no noise, particularly from playing music, to be heard externally from the premises, except from when the door was open. To address this, internal doors were to be installed, which were also to be used as a space for security staff.
• The applicant had been operating the premises for a year and had employed security staff and had removed and banned customers who were causing issues. WYP had been called on one occasion to assist with a disruptive customer and it was noted that the applicant had a good relationship with local Police Officers. There were local issues with street drinking, but this was not related to the business operations of the premises.
• Councillor Carlisle had claimed that there had been complaints received within the last 12 months when the applicant had taken over the premises, however, none of these reports had been submitted and no complaints had been received directly to the premises or to responsible authorities.
• The premises had served over 100 customers per day, on occasion, which obviously led to some noise, however, there were appropriate measures in place to limit disturbance to local residents.
• As part of the proposals for the outdoor seating area, the tables were only to be used by customers until 20:00 and would be used as a smoking area after this time. They applicant was content to install removable seats to be taken inside after 20:00, however, this was noted to incur additional costs.
• A contact for a local taxi company was available for customers when they left the premises.
• The premises did not propose to allow live music performances and recorded music was to be played as background music only. A noise assessment logbook was regularly used and checked by the applicant.
• On Friday’s, Saturday’s and Sunday’s, the applicant had agreed with WYP that the premises were allowed to be open until 2:30, with door staff on site and this had been reduced to 2:00 in agreement with Councillor Wray.
• As part of the variation, a condition was proposed for alcohol prohibited from the outside area by 23:00, which was proposed to be reduced to 22:00.

In response to questions from Members the following points were noted:

• How the no alcohol allowed after 22:00 in the outside area condition was to be enforced was queried. In response it was outlined that the frontage of the premises was 7 meters of glass and could be visually monitored and would be enforced by the door staff.
• The proposed approach to noise conditions was detailed at page 67 of the report, with acceptance that a noise limiter may be appropriate but there were already conditions within the existing proposed schedule to limit noise. It was confirmed there was not a noise limiter installed at the premises.

The Objector addressed the Sub-Committee providing the following information:

• Although an agreement could have potentially been reached and the application determined by delegated decision, it was felt to be good practise to hold the hearing in order to strike the right balance between supporting the hospitality industry and impact on the local community.
• There had been historic issues at the premises, mainly associated with the previous owner, however, reports of noise nuisance had still occurred since the new owner had been in place and all measures to limit public nuisance and disturbance were sought.
• Although this was a new applicant seeking later licensed hours, the premises was noted to attract similar clientele and produced noise that impacted on residents.
• The installation of a noise limiter was thought to be an appropriate measure to address any issues against persistent noise. Noise issues from the outdoor seating area had not been reported, however, it was alluded that the premises may be putting on an act while the variation was under consideration and disturbance may reoccur once approved.
• Discussions had been held with the Legal Representative prior to the hearing which had been successful in reaching new proposed agreements to further tighten the conditions. The suggestions included no drinks outside after 22:00, development of a three strikes policy for problem customers and a food led business approach, with an enforcement model for the number of standing and seated covers.
• Noise and disturbance issues had been reported last autumn when the new owner was in place and even when doors and windows were closed, music was heard outside the premises.
• Although it had not been personally witnessed, there had been reports of disturbance from people loitering around the premises including the use of a speaker to play loud music.
• It was noted that formal reports or complaints from residents would be more forthcoming if there was more public faith in real outcomes to address issues and Councillor Carlisle was representing the local community. Stringent measures were sought to limit disturbance whilst being mindful of extra expenses incurred to the applicant.
• The Legal Representative had visited the premises recently on a quiet Monday evening, whereas issues were much more likely on a late weekend evening.
• It was perceived that the applicant may want to operate a similar business model to a nearby premises under the name Paco Restaurant which was noted to poorly manage noise and disturbance to local residents late at night.
• A reason for maintaining the objection and requesting the hearing was for the applicant to understand the historic issues of the premises and the impact on local residents as best practise and to seek a rigorous but reasonable agreement.

In response to questions from Members the following points were noted:

• No formal representation had been submitted by local residents, but Councillor Carlisle stated he had been in receipt of an email from a property two streets away from the premises outlining disturbance had occurred at late hours. Residents had been encouraged to voice their concerns, however, issues of not feeling listened to, language barriers and digital literacy were outlined as reasons submissions had not been forthcoming.
• The premises was not within a high density residential area but was close enough to a residential community area to have an impact.
• As agreements had been reached with other parties that had originally objected, specific conditions that were sought to be included on the licence were queried. In response it was outlined that a noise limiter should be installed, and the business should be food led with conditions to specify appropriate seated and standing covers. The Legal Officer noted that there was the possibility to include specific restaurant conditions on the licence.
• A resident had reported that noise and disturbance had affected a young person’s revision for GSCE exams after the licence had been transferred to the new owner.
• The variation application had been submitted in June 2024, with the original hearing adjourned in August 2024. During this time, and since the transfer of the licence, noise from the premises was limited and it was suspected this may be to develop a false sense of the premises future operations where significant disturbance may then occur with the licenced hours extended.
• The ethos of the business was hoped to be food led and with very limited vertical drinking in order for operations to be fair on the local community as it wasn’t just music that created noise, but rowdiness of customers.
• Members noted a number of conditions and steps had been agreed in order for noise to be limited and that as EPT were the experts and had withdrawn their representation and no new noise complaints had been submitted, the issues raised held limited evidence.
• Members outlined that given the historic issues of disturbance, it can take time to settle issues with customers of the previous business model. Although there had been no new complaints since the notice for the variation had been displayed outside the premises, Councillor Carlisle wanted the application to be thoroughly scrutinised to get the best outcome for residents.

In summary, the applicant’s Legal Representative outlined the following points to the Sub-Committee:

• Any historic issues associated with the previous owner were not relevant to this application and it was to be determined against its own merits and significant measures had been agreed with responsible authorities prior to the hearing.
• The applicant had displayed willingness to work with authorities and the local community and having visited the premises it was clear he was a good operator with honest intentions.
• The licence and associated conditions did allow for the premises to be operate as food led, however, the requested conditions to specify seated covers would be onerous and hard to enforce.
• There was no need for additional noise conditions as there were already stringent measures in place and the proposed installation of internal doors were a practical solution to limit any noise or disturbance stemming from the premises.
• There was no evidence in support of Councillor Carlisle’s claim of noise complaints submitted since the licence had been transferred to the applicant.

RESOLVED – To grant the premises licence as applied for, subject to the amendment of condition 27 to read - the activities of persons using the external areas shall be monitored after 10pm and they shall be reminded to have regard to the needs of local residents and to refrain from shouting and anti-social behaviour etc when necessary.