Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory.

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory presented an application for the grant of a Premises Licence for Wendy’s, 88-91 Briggate, Leeds, LS1 6NP.

The application was for the provision of late night refreshment every day from 23:00 to 03:00.

The application had attracted a representation from a member of the public who was opposed to the application on the grounds of public safety, public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

The following were in attendance:

·  SoterisPapacaoullas, Director, Square Burgers Ltd - Applicant

·  Costantino Papadamou, Director, Square Burgers Ltd – Applicant

·  George Papadamou, Director, Square Burgers Ltd - Applicant

·  Bradley Cowley – Square Burgers Ltd – Applicant

·  Sean, Founder, McKickz Ltd – Objector

Prior to the start of the hearing, the objector requested an adjournment.  He had wanted to submit photographic and video evidence which highlighted the kinds of anti-social behaviour that had occurred but this still required editing for data protection requirements.  The Sub-Committee did not feel an adjournment was appropriate and informed the objector that he could give further information when making his representations.

The applicant was invited to address the Sub-Committee. The following was highlighted:

·  There were lots of takeaways and bars nearby and this application would not be out of the ordinary for that part of the city.

·  There was no evidence that this application would contribute to the existing problems in the area.

·  There had not been any police objections to the application.

·  There would be 24/7 CCTV operation and security staff employed during late night opening.

·  There would not be the sale of alcohol and it was felt this would give customers an opportunity to sober up and reduce the risk of any disorder.

·  There would be patrols and litter collection in the surrounding area.

·  There would be a team of between 40 to 60 employed at the premises and all would receive full training and have career prospects.

·  The concerns with regards to anti-social behaviour were understood.

·  There had not been objections from other neighbouring businesses.

·  There were other premises that operated for 24 hours and it was felt that the applicant would provide a better operation than others.

·  Door staff would be employed from 23:00 until closing.

The objector was invited to address the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  The objector had a shop premises near to the applicant and had issues relating to anti-social behaviour from other late night premises.

·  The applicant’s premises would attract intoxicated people and there had been problems with people urinating and taking drugs round the back of the objector’s premises.  It would also attract homeless people and other drug users who were begging.

·  The premises would need to have a toilet.

·  The objector’s premises had a glass frontage and windows had been smashed.  Other nearby premises had also been damaged and had problems due to anti-social behaviour.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, discussion included the following:

·  The objector had concerns that friends of people attending the premises would congregate outside and this could lead to anti-social behaviour.  He also made reference to fights that had occurred outside other similar premises.

·  The applicant confirmed that toilets at the premises would remain open throughout the hours of opening.

·  It was proposed to employ an extra member of staff for late nights to monitor outside the premises.

·  Litter would be cleared on a morning before the premises opened.

·  The premises would create more lighting in the area and the addition of CCTV and door staff will improve security.

·  The applicant was willing to work with any neighbours and the Council to tackle any concerns.

·  The objector was not convinced that the measures would prevent any further issues as similar premises in the city still had problems during late night openings.

The applicant was invited to sum up.  Although they understood the concerns of the objector, they did not think their operation would add to any problems within the city centre and they aimed to be good neighbours.

The Chair concluded the open session of the hearing before the Sub-Committee went into private session to make their decision. All parties were informed that the decision would be sent within 5 working days.

The Licensing Sub-Committee carefully considered the report of the Chief Officer (Elections and Regulatory), the Statement of Licensing Policy and the representations submitted and made at the hearing.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted as applied for.