Document Sample
14 Powered By Docstoc



                            Councillor D Buttle - Chairperson


D Unwin
P J White


R Morris         -    Senior Licensing Assistant
A Lee            -    Legal Officer
R Lewis          -    Legal Officer (under instruction)
A Rees           -    Senior Cabinet and Committee Officer



72      LICENSING ACT 2003: SECTION 17

        The Chairperson introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers and asked the
        relevant parties to introduce themselves.

        The following were in attendance:-

        H A Erdogan – Applicant
        C Coskun – Representing the Applicant
        P.C. K Ellis – South Wales Police

        The Committee adjourned in order that the applicant could consider the additional
        evidence submitted by South Wales Police.

        The meeting reconvened at 10.24am.

        Mr Coskun explained to the Committee that he was present to assist Mr Erdogan
        with his language needs at the Hearing.

        The Senior Licensing Assistant outlined the report which was an application for a
        new premises licence for the Antalya Takeaway, Bettws Road, Bettws. The
        premises were described as a takeaway specialising in kebabs and had a table
        and two chairs in the customer area of the premises.

        The application was for a premises licence which authorises the provision of late
        night refreshment from the premises. The proposed licensed area was the
        ground floor of a single storey building, with an off-licence next door. The
        proposal was for the licensable activity of late night refreshment from Monday to
        Sunday from 23:00 to 00:00 hours. The premises were permitted to be open to
        the public from Monday to Sunday from 16:00 to 00:00 hours by virtue of


      planning consent P/06/624/FUL. A recent planning application to permit longer
      opening hours at the premises had been refused. The application stated that it
      was not proposed that there would be any adult entertainment on the premises
      and that children were required to be accompanied by an adult after 21:00 hours.
      Representations had been received from South Wales Police and were attached
      at Appendix B to the report. Representations had also been received from a
      member of the public, namely G Lewis, but these had since been withdrawn.

      Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, Mr Erdogan in addressing the Committee
      thanked the Committee for attending today to hear the application for a new
      premises licence. He stated that the extension of time was very important to Mr
      Erdogan, as his decision to purchase the business was based on his assumption
      that the premises were open for longer hours. On discovering the hours of
      opening for the premises, this had a big effect on his takings. He had also
      printed leaflets advertising the hours of business.

      When he first purchased the business, he had a fear of experiencing problems of
      anti-social behaviour from local persons experienced by the previous owner of
      the premises. There had been some incidents of windows being broken, but
      since local people had got to know him and his staff, there had been fewer
      incidents. The applicant submitted that his business provides a service to the
      public. He knew the importance of crime prevention and wanted to assist the
      Police by installing a new CCTV system.

      The applicant submitted that in the kebab shop business, the majority of the
      takings were after pub closing hours, the takings amounting to three or four times
      to that of the remainder of the day. It was submitted by the appellant that if the
      business had to close at 23:00 hours he would need to make a decision as to
      whether the business was viable, being that he had three employees. There was
      demand and support from his customers to open the business for longer hours
      and he had received similar support and an offer of a reference from landlords of
      local public houses to support the extension of opening hours.

      The majority of the premises business came from deliveries to households and it
      was the aim of the business to serve customers at the shop quickly in order that
      they may return home to consume their food. The applicant submitted that he
      had worked hard to turn around the business due to the abuse suffered by the
      former owner of the premises, which had decreased significantly. As the waiting
      area in the premises was not big, customers who came into the premises were
      served swiftly and moved on from the premises.

      The applicant referred to a Police Log 314877 which stated that the premises
      were open until 02:00am. He informed the Sub-Committee that he and his staff
      occasionally stayed at the premises until then to protect his premises in case
      trouble broke out. The closest residential property to the premises was 100
      metres away and the doors to the premises were kept shut to minimise noise.
      The majority of the business were deliveries of food to public houses and
      deliveries accounted for 70 per cent of his business. Most orders received by the
      business were late at night. It was difficult in the current economic climate for the
      business to stay open.

      The majority of trouble caused at the premises was from youths in the area, and
      the staff at the premises served them as quickly as possible and politely so that
      they can get away from the premises. People purchased alcohol from the off-
      licence next door to the premises which reflected badly on his business. The
      applicant submitted that people had shouted at him asking why his business was


      not open longer as they needed food and he frequently waited for people to
      disperse from the premises late at night in order to protect his business. He had
      spoken to the landlord of the premises requesting roller shutters and he had
      approached the Council for a grant towards the cost of the shutter, but his
      landlord had delayed in making a decision. He had pressurised his landlord on
      the issues of the roller shutter and had purchased a CCTV system along with a
      sign to be displayed which showed customers that CCTV was in operation at the
      premises. He had also purchased a fire blanket and a fire extinguisher. After
      closing hours, the applicant cleared outside his premises, picking up containers
      and frequently cleaned the serving area so that customers could enjoy a clean

      The applicant stated that he was getting used to the area and the local people
      were getting used to him and his staff at the premises. He was aware that most
      of his customers were under the influence of alcohol and when incidents occurred
      he informed the Police immediately. There had been no major incident whereby
      people required hospital treatment and it was mainly customers arguing amongst
      themselves which was difficult to prevent.

      The applicant believed that CCTV will help towards controlling misbehaviour and
      customers behaving themselves. The applicant informed the Committee that the
      premises remained open from 16:00 to 23:00 hours and after closing time
      customers called into his premises on their way home.

      Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, thanked the Sub-Committee for their time.

      In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr Coskun, on behalf of the
      applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Erdogan had taken over the
      business at the premises from 1st November 2007. The Sub-Committee also
      questioned the applicant on his understanding of the hours of operation at the
      premises on taking over the business and whether he had anything in writing to
      this effect from the previous owner. Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, stated
      that he had in his possession a letter from the Council to the previous owner, Mr
      Ocak, relating to the planning consent for the premises whereby the premises
      were permitted to open to the public from 16:00 to 00:00 hours.

      The Legal Officer questioned the applicant as to whether he had used a lawyer in
      the purchase of his business. Mr Coskun stated that Mr Erdogan had used a
      lawyer to deal with the transaction between himself and his landlord, but had not
      used a lawyer for the transaction between him and the previous owner. He put
      this down to inexperience of being involved in a business in the United Kingdom.

      The Sub-Committee asked the applicant for an explanation of the two reported
      incidents to the Police of out of hours opening at the premises. The applicant
      stated that he remained in the premises until people had dispersed to avoid
      trouble being caused and to clean the premises and to change the oil which took
      an hour to do. He was previously not aware that the premises had to shut at
      23:00 hours and after being notified he then closed the premises at 23:00 hours.
      Of the two incidents, one was for after-hours activity and the other incident
      related to him informing the Police of a disturbance outside the premises. The
      applicant followed the planning consent which stated that he was able to open to
      customers until midnight.

      In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Coskun informed that the
      premises had an existing CCTV system, but in order to follow the
      recommendations of the Police to record for longer than one month, he had


      purchased a new system which recorded digitally. He had been informed by the
      Police that the new system complied with their requirements. P.C. Ellis submitted
      that he had no knowledge of the CCTV system at the premises. Mr Coskun
      informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant had spoken to the Police but did
      not have a contact name. P.C. Ellis informed the Sub-Committee that the CCTV
      system at the premises was not of good quality. He questioned the applicant as
      to how many people were employed at the premises. Mr Coskun confirmed that
      three people were employed at the premises.

      In a supplementary question, P.C. Ellis referred to the application for the
      premises licence, particularly to the section which related to the four licensing
      objectives whereby the applicant had stated that staff training on licensing was
      given. The applicant informed the Sub-Committee that training of staff was
      undertaken by a Mr Iqbal who was located in Swansea and who advised on
      Health & Safety issues and also in relation to the general affairs of the business.

      P.C. Ellis questioned the applicant as to whether the new CCTV system
      recommended by the Police had been installed. Mr Coskun, on behalf of the
      applicant, submitted that the engineer would be installing the system today and
      he had bought the camera yesterday which would be collected today.

      P.C. Ellis referred to the statement made on behalf of the applicant whereby
      customers were encouraged to leave the premises quickly and questioned that
      having tables and chairs in the premises did not equate with that policy. Mr
      Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, submitted that there were two chairs and one
      table at the premises and were there in case an elderly person or someone
      waiting for their food wished to sit down, however, 70 per cent of the business
      was through deliveries.

      P.C. Ellis questioned the applicant as to whether his staff were well trained in
      crime prevention. Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, informed the Sub-
      Committee that staff were instructed to be polite and vigilant in case someone
      was about to cause trouble and to serve customers quickly. If trouble occurred at
      the premises, the Police were called.

      P.C. Ellis questioned the applicant as to how did he enforce children attending at
      the premises without an adult after 9:00pm. Mr Coskun, on behalf of the
      applicant, submitted that it was difficult to enforce, however, children were asked
      politely to come back to the premises with an adult.

      The Legal Officer referred to the number of conditions which related to the CCTV
      system and questioned the applicant whether there was provision for a secure
      room for the equipment as the Police required a lockable room on the premises.
      Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that there
      was a lockable corridor within the premises, whilst a box could also be made to
      house the equipment.

      The Sub-Committee proceeded to hear representations made by P.C. Ellis on behalf
      of the South Wales Police. He submitted that there were a number of commercial
      properties located in close proximity, among them being the old Co-operative store
      and off-licence next door, east side stores, off-licence, Pricewise and Bettws Road is
      the main thoroughfare running through Bettws. Bettws itself is divided into two
      distinct areas, namely the lower and top sites with the premises being located in the
      former area and surrounded on all sides by residential properties. This was a village
      environment and in no way should the inhabitants have to suffer such unreasonable
      operating hours as proposed by the applicant. The new legislation provided a clear


      focus on the promotion of the four licensing objectives, which must now be
      addressed when licensing functions are undertaken and these are the Prevention of
      Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, the Prevention of Public Nuisance and the
      Protection of Children from Harm. Public nuisance caused by on street parking
      would be a problem and premises allowing the provision of hot food until late at night
      into the early hours of the morning will increase both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
      in and around the vicinity of the venue. The proposals if approved could also lead to
      an increase in crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour. There were already
      excessive numbers of late night food establishments within Bridgend County
      Borough generally and any increase inevitably results in an increased deployment of
      Police resources to deal with problems caused by late night revellers who tend to
      frequent these premises. Such premises, in particular kebab houses, remain a
      potential source of disorder and require an unwelcome level of policing to the
      detriment of other policing demands in the locality. The problems experienced at the
      premises commenced over two years and as a consequence it was afforded
      inclusion on the Police Licensing database when it did not come under the
      jurisdiction of the Licensing Act.

      There had been a number of reported incidents recorded against the premises on
      the database and include criminal damage to the window of the takeaway on three
      occasions, attempted damage by youths throwing stones at the window, antisocial
      behaviour, staff being subject of racial abuse and staff operating outside restricted
      planning hours and without a premises licence. P.C. Ellis referred to an incident
      witnessed by a Police Sergeant who reported an incident of staff at the premises
      who had been blatantly breaching the hours of opening with crowds of people
      gathering in the vicinity of the takeaway due to it being open until the early hours.
      The Officer witnessing the incident introduced himself to the staff at the premises
      and he was in turn informed by the staff that they did not know the hours of
      operation. He referred to the letter sent to Mr M Ocak of 10th September 2008
      referring to recent complaints of antisocial behaviour, this letter had been sent to the
      previous owner as the Police were not aware who the current owner of the premises
      was. Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, submitted that he kept a bundle of
      letters addressed to Mr Ocak as he did not know his current whereabouts, but did not
      open those letters.

      The Legal Officer referred to the enforcement exercise on 18th September 2008 due
      to the premises opening outside its operating hours and questioned the applicant as
      to his reasons for applying for planning consent for an extension of the operating
      hours. The applicant submitted that he had received a telephone call and a visit from
      the Police which informed him that he could not only open until 23:00 hours, he then
      asked the Council what would be the maximum hours achievable for the premises to
      be opened.

      P.C. Ellis referred to an e-mail to the Licensing Department from P.C. Karen Ellis,
      Frontline Support Officer of the Neighbourhood Policing Team dated 7th October
      2008, which stated “one of the PACT priorities for Bettws is that the Antalya Kebab
      Shop is opening past closing time without a licence”. The Frontline Support Officer
      asked whether there had been an application for an extension to their hours. P.C.
      Ellis then referred to an assessment of the operating schedule.

      P.C. Ellis submitted that any person attending the premises could use the table and
      chairs which had an impact on the disbursement of customers from the premises,
      one of the main provisions of the Act and if the application is approved, will
      encourage persons not only to remain within the takeaway until 00:00 hours, but in
      the immediate area beyond.


      P.C. Ellis concluded by submitting that the intended steps detailed in the operating
      schedule were unsatisfactory and would not promote the licensing objectives and the
      South Wales Police therefore wholly object to the application on the basis that no
      evidence had been placed before them that (a) the premises would not add to the
      negative impact already being experienced in this area (b) the potential problems in
      the area would be addressed. However, if the Sub-Committee was not minded to
      support the Police representations then it requested the Licensing Sub-Committee to
      impose additional conditions and restrictions on the licence attached as Appendix B.

      P.C. Ellis submitted that he did not know what the specification of the new CCTV
      system was and whether it fulfilled the requirements. He also referred to the opening
      hours which would be displayed prominently in a professional manner at the
      entrance to and within the premises. Staff and customers alike would then be in no
      doubt as to the permitted operating timings. The licensing objectives detail did not
      allow a considered assessment of the management of the premises and when
      considering this application he asked to take account of the Police representations
      and the probable increase in public nuisance and crime and disorder in the area. He
      referred to a reported incident on 23rd October 2008 whereby a CCTV tape was
      taken from the premises, but the Police were told that the incident had not been
      captured as the system was not recording at the time. He submitted that there was
      no redress for the Police if the CCTV system was not switched on and it was also a
      breach of the conditions of the licence.

      The Sub-Committee questioned P.C. Ellis that of the 17 incidents reported, 14 were
      alcohol related and 3 incidents of trading after the hours of operation and questioned
      the Officer as to whether there was more of a problem on alcohol related problems
      outside the premises and not in the premises itself. PC Ellis informed the Sub-
      Committee that the incidents were all alcohol related and had to be given an incident
      type on the Police database. The Sub-Committee questioned the Officer whether
      the incidents would have occurred if the business was not there. PC Ellis informed
      the Sub-Committee that the incidents related to the premises.

      In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, the applicant stated that the off-
      licence next door to the premises kept irregular opening hours and closed around
      21:00 to 22:00 hours.

      In summing up, Mr Coskun, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the extension of
      hours was very important to the applicant’s business. He had spoken to the parents
      of youths for them to talk to them to calm them and they were since behaving better.
      He would like to comply with all reasonable rules and legislation and CCTV was a
      deterrent. If the tables and chairs were disruptive for the licence he would remove
      them, but they were only used by customers waiting for food. He would also get
      signs showing the hours of operation on the premises. In relation to car parking,
      there were no double yellow lines across the road and there was ample car parking
      in the vicinity. He also underlined that his business was affected by alcohol related
      problems, but neither he nor his staff drink alcohol. Similar businesses in Maesteg,
      Pontycymmer and Nantymoel operated until 00:00 hours, 1:00am or 2:00am. Most
      of his business was done late at night and he had invested his savings into his

      The Sub-Committee retired to consider the application at 12:12pm and resumed at

      On their return, the Chairperson advised that they had considered the application
      and the objections, together with the log of incidents linked to the premises. They
      had also considered the Licensing Act 2003 and in particular the four licensing


      objectives. It was the view of the Sub-Committee that the licence be granted, in
      doing so the Sub-Committee did not feel that the extra hour will contribute to crime
      and disorder and noted that the applicant will install CCTV.

      RESOLVED:        That the application for a new premises licence in respect of
                       Antalya Takeaway, Bettws Road, Bettws, Bridgend be granted
                       subject to the following conditions:-

                       1.     The Licensee shall retain and maintain the installation of
                              digital CCTV at the premises to the satisfaction of South
                              Wales Police Crime Reduction Officer.

                       2.     The system shall be maintained at all times the premises
                              remain open to the public.

                       3.     The Licensee shall ensure that all aspects of the CCTV
                              system comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. The
                              Office of the Data Protection Supervisor has produced
                              guidance in relation to how the Act should be interpreted,
                              including advice on the required signage.

                       4.     The Licensee shall install CCTV at or near to the entrance(s)
                              and exit(s) to the premises and record ingress and egress of
                              customers. CCTV will also be located in all other areas to
                              which the public has access.

                       5.     The Licensee will arrange for signs to be placed in a
                              prominent position visible to customers, stating that CCTV is
                              in operation at the premises. The sign must show the
                              controller’s contact details.

                       6.     Signage will approved by the Crime Reduction Officer.

                       7.     There will be a storage facility of CCTV images of up to 31
                              days covering the maximum number of days in a calendar

                       8.     The Licensee must make recordings of images available on
                              request to any Officer of the South Wales Police in the
                              course of their duties as soon, as is reasonably practicable.
                              Therefore adequate training will have to be provided to duty
                              staff in order to comply with this condition.

                       9.     The Licensee will be responsible for ensuring that the
                              operating equipment is regularly checked and that it
                              operates at all times during the opening hours.

                       10.    The Licensee shall provide and maintain a register to detail
                              any CCTV recordings handed to the South Wales Police in a
                              format to be approved by the Police. Details of both the
                              person handing over the recordings and the Police Officer
                              receiving them should also be documented.

                       11.    In the event of a breakdown the CCTV system will be
                              repaired, or if needs to be replaced, as soon as is
                              reasonably practicable.


                      12.   CCTV will be installed and fully functional within 28 days of
                            the licence being determined.

                      13.   The opening hours will be displayed prominently in a
                            professional manner at the entrance to and within the

       The meeting closed at 12:34pm.