Meeting documents

Licensing Panel
Tuesday, 24th September, 2013

Place: Wheel Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland PR25 1DH

 Present: Councillors Mrs A A Ball, Ms J Bell, Mr D Howarth
 In attendance: Kay Lovelady (Principal Solicitor), Niky Barrett (Licensing Enforcement Officer), Gillian Strike (Senior Environmental Health Officer), Andy Smith (Licensing Officer) and Dave Lee (Democratic Services Officer)
 Public attendance: 11
 Other Officers: None

Other Members: Councillor Otter

Item Description/Resolution Status Action
9 Appointment of Chairman

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that Councillor Mrs Ball be appointed chairman for the meeting.

10 Apologies for Absence

There were no apologies reported.

11 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest declared.

12 Application to Vary Premises Licence Under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003: Petras Pizzas, 11A Preston Rd, Farington
Report attached
Appendix attached

The panel considered an application for the variation of a Premises Licence submitted under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003. This application was in respect of Petras Pizzas, 11A Preston Road, Farington.

With the permission of the panel and in accordance with the council?s hearing procedure the Licensing Officer introduced the application.

At this point of the proceedings, the Principal Solicitor reported that the council had received late written representation from the applicant?s legal representative. The Principal Solicitor presented this information at the meeting.

The applicant, then addressed the panel and questions were asked. Local residents objecting to the application then addressed the panel and questions were asked.

Having fully considered the representations (written and oral) made by local residents and the application made by the applicant, the panel retired to reach its decision.

In reaching its decision the panel took into account the following:

? both written and oral evidence presented in connection with the hearing
? Licensing Act 2003
? S182 Amended Guidance of the Licensing Act 2003 and taken into account the references to the guidance made by both parties
? South Ribble Borough Council?s Licensing Policy


1. the application to vary the premises licence as applied for be refused.
2. for the following reasons, the modification and the addition of conditions on the licence as set out below be granted.

The panel ?

1. believed that hot food had been served to customers outside the permitted licensing hours and this was shown by the evidence of the Licensing Enforcement Officer and the contemporaneous notes made following her monitoring visits
2. accepted that once Mr Nazari had been interviewed by the Licensing Enforcement Officer that he made an effort to stick to his licensing hours although minor breaches had still been observed. The panel believed that the licensing objectives were still being undermined in particular in respect of public nuisance and crime and disorder even when the Premises Licence Holder tried to operate within his current hours.
3. did not believe the evidence provided in the letter from Vincent?s solicitors that Mr Nazari claimed that the people being served after hours were his family/staff being given free food. This was evidenced by the contemporaneous notes of the Licensing Enforcement Officer from the monitoring of the premises showing various people entering the premises after hours and leaving with food. In particular groups of people being observed coming directly from the Railway Pub to the premises. In addition, Mr Nazari confirmed at the hearing that none of his family or friends worked for the post office whereas the Licensing Enforcement Officer recognised one individual who was provided with food as her postman.
4. noted that despite the premises licence stating since 17/10/2006 that CCTV was required Mr Nazari confirmed at the hearing that he had taken over the Premises Licence in 2010/11 and had only installed CCTV in July 2012. Despite installing CCTV evidence was heard that he was unable to provide copies of the footage on request and when the Licensing Enforcement Officer attended the premises the system was not plugged in or operative
5. concluded that after hearing the evidence, on a balance of probabilities, the premises had been operating outside the licensable hours for some time. There were issues in the area generally even when operating at the permitted hours but the issues had become worse the later the premises was open. The panel believed that the licensing objectives had been undermined to a level that was no longer appropriate and steps were required to redress the balance.
6. noted the evidence from the residents and Environmental Health that once the application had been submitted and Mr Nazari returned to more or less the original licensing hours the issues and problems in the area reduced.
7. were not happy that Door Staff operating at the neighbouring public house were covering the two premises and asked that this stop.
8. noted that apart from the items raised above the Premises Licence Holder appeared not to have been complying with other conditions on the licence such as Incident Log, sweeping the front of the shop etc.
9. noted that the dispersal of customers would be another important factor. If the variation was granted customers were being dispersed into a more residential area which would undermine the licensing objectives more than if they dispersed in the opposite direction towards Chapel Brow where other food outlets exist in a less residential area.

The panel initially considered whether any of the licensing objectives had been undermined. Their conclusion was that they had in particular in respect of the Prevention of Nuisance and the Prevention of Crime and Disorder which was evidenced by the breaches of the licensing conditions and the examples of problems outlined by the local residents and observations on the monitoring visits. The objectives were undermined both when operating at the permitted hours but also when Mr Nazari had operated illegally until approximately 2 ? 3am when the panel had heard evidence that the incidents had become worse.

The panel accepted that there were problems in the area generally which were not acceptable but that if the application was granted the four licensing objectives would be undermined even more. They noted that there was evidence to show not only the increased problems if the extended hours were granted but also how they could be reduced if the premises operated within the correct hours.

The panel believed that even when the premises was operated under the current timings there was evidence to show that the licensing objectives would be undermined to an unacceptable level and as such concluded that the application would be rejected but also considered what steps were appropriate to redress the balance.

The panel therefore decided that the premises licence operating times should be changed to ensure that on a Friday and Saturday the premises should only be able to provide Late Night Refreshment until 12.45am but the premises would still remain open to serve the remaining customers until 1am as per the original timings.

The following conditions would also apply/revise the licence:

1. CCTV will be installed internally and externally at the premises and will comply with the following:

a. The CCTV shall cover all public areas of the premises.
b. The system will display on any recording the correct time and date of the recording
c. The system will make recordings during all hours that the premises are open to the public
d. The VCR tapes or digital recording media will be held for a minimum of 31 days after the recording is made and will be made available to the Police or an authorised officer acting for a Responsible Authority for inspection on request.
e. The system will, as a minimum, record images if the head and shoulders of all persons entering the premises

2. A staff member who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system will be on the premises at all times the premises are open to the public. This staff member will be able to show police or authorise officer data or footage on request.
3. The Premises Licence Holder will notify the Police Licensing Unit on any occasion when the CCTV is to be inoperative for a period in excess of one working day and at the time of notification of the said system becoming inoperative shall provide a certificate from a competent person stating the reason for the system being inoperative and the measures which have been taken to satisfy the licence conditions.
4. Appropriate signs informing customers that CCTV is recording will be displayed in conspicuous positions on the premises
5. Monthly documented maintenance checks of the CCTV system, including the recording system, will be carried out by the Premises Licence Holder to ensure that the system is in good working order and fit for purpose. Such checks shall be recorded in a book and be provided to a Police Officer or authorised officer on request
6. A clear legible notice will be displayed in a conspicuous position at every exit point from the premises asking customers to avoid causing noise nuisance or disturbance to local residents
7. The front doors of the premises are to be shut at 1am on a Friday and Saturday

The Committee therefore concluded that the modification and the addition of conditions would redress the undermining of the Licensing Objectives.


  Published on Thursday 26 September 2013