Agenda and draft minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the filming of meetings and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were none.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).

There was no urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.  

The Sub-Committee will first hear from the Licensing Officer.  After that, the applicant will present their application and the Sub-Committee and objectors will have the opportunity to ask questions. Then, the objectors will present their case and the Sub-Committee and objectors will have the opportunity to ask questions. 

All parties will then have the opportunity to sum up, and then the meeting will conclude to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate and reach a decision. This decision will then be provided in writing within five working days of this meeting.

The Chair provided a summary of the procedure for the meeting.  

To consider an application for a review of a premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         This was a review application.

·         The review application had been submitted by a local resident citing concerns about noise, public nuisance and impact in nearby residential properties.

·         The premises had a licence that allowed it to supply alcohol.

·         A copy of the premises licence could be found in the agenda papers.

·         The supply of alcohol was ancillary to a meal.

·         As the premises could sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, it therefore benefitted from the automatic right to provide regulated entertainment in the form of live or recorded music between the hours of 08:00 to 23:00 under the exemption regulations.

·         During the consultation period, representations were received from the Noise team, residents supporting the review application and residents in support of the premises.

·         There was also an informative email included from a planning officer providing an overview of the current situation.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, the representative for the premises licence holder, Mr Niall Mccan, stated that the outside area included the area that was ‘covered’. This was referred to as the ‘outside backyard’.

Presentation by the review applicant

Ms Oonagh Shiel, a resident and the review applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         She was not opposed to the business.

·         She was aware that the premises was a much loved, beautiful and valued community asset.

·         She had lived in the area for years with very few issues under the previous ownership. When problems did arise, they were dealt with very quickly and respectfully and a review application was never needed.

·         How the premises was being run had changed. Since the changes in management, the impact on her home life had been constant, intrusive and exhausting.

·         The review was not about one loud night or a single summer event. The disturbance had continued, including weekdays, early mornings and times when the yard was otherwise empty. 

·         She lived and worked from home. The area was also where her child studied, where her family ate and spent time together.

·         Since mid 2025, there had been regular amplified music and loud voices from the covered dining area, early morning and late-night disturbance from cleaning and staff activity, mechanical noise from equipment running on and off overnight and light pollution from lights left on too long after closing time.

·         There had also been events of a scale and intensity that completely overwhelmed her household.  Her home was very close from the covered dining area and the separation was a thin garden fence, a wooden fence that was slatted, had gaps in parts and was poorly repaired in some parts.

·         There had been repeated occasions where she had been able to clearly identify songs, individual conversations inside every room in her home even with all windows and door closed. She could hear individual conversations, speeches and shouting.

·         On some occasions, she had her children and had had to leave the home because the noise was simply too  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider an application for a variation of a premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         This was an application for the variation of an existing premises licence.

·         The application sought to extend the times for alcohol sales. 

·         A copy of the application could be found at appendix 1 and was seeking a sale of alcohol 07:00 to 02:00 Monday to Sunday for consumption off the premises.

·         During the consultation period, representations had been received from the Noise and Nuisance officer, from Police and from residents. 

Presentation by the applicant

Mr Vishal Patel, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         The licence holder had taken over the small family-run post office and convenience store in July 2025 and had operated responsibly with no licensing complaints or incident.

·         He fully respected considerations from the Noise team, Police, residents and any ward councillors regarding drinking, antisocial behaviour, nuisance and the Clear, Hold, Build initiative. He supported these efforts and aimed to contribute positively.

·         As per the Licensing Act and the Council’s policy, decisions should be open-minded and based on the specific evidence presented regarding the premises and not general assumptions.

·         He hoped the Sub-Committee approached the hearing fairly.

·         None of the representation cited problems caused by the premises. There had been no crime, no noise logs, disorder or any incidents under the applicant’s management.

·         The concerns raised were area wide and not specific to the well-managed business.

·         The application had strong measures for the licensing objective with 24 hour by CCTV with 35 days retention, trained staff, a strict Challenge 25 policy, refusal to sell to intoxicated customers, well managed logs, external checks to prevent loitering, good lighting, no audible noise outside the premises.

·         This had worked flawlessly in the last six months with zero issues.

·         The applicant was happy to add conditions, no single sales of alcoholic drinks, enhanced dispersal to support the whole phase.

·         As a small business, the applicant needed extended hours to serve shift workers, late commuters and stadium visitors offering safe supervised access over unregulated sources.

·         Nearby premises had similar permissions. Without this, it was hard to compete, sustain jobs and keep the high street vibrant.

·         If the full seven days to 02:00 was too much, perhaps due to the weekends, the applicant was happy to accept amendments like limiting the terminal hour of 02:00 to Fridays and Saturday nights initially. This would provide meaningful support while monitoring progress.

·         The applicant preferred all days, but was flexible and committed to safe operations. Granting this or with modifications aligned with area improvements and would help the ‘Build’ phase (of Clear, Hold, Build) by supporting a responsible small business.

·         He would ask the Sub-Committee to grant the variation as sought or with proportionate conditions including a phased approach to Friday and Saturday to give the small business the support it needed while upholding the objectives.

At this point in the proceedings, the Sub-Committee decided to extend the meeting past 10:00pm in order for the meeting to be concluded. 

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider any items of urgent business as identified at item 3.

There were no new items of urgent business.