Agenda item

APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION OF AN EXISTING PREMISES LICENCE: PIZZA PAN, 745 AYLESTONE ROAD, LEICESTER, LE2 8TG

The Director of Local Services and Enforcement submits a report on an application for a variation of an existing premises licence for Pizza Pan, 745 Aylestone Road, Leicester, LE2 8TG.

 

Report attached. A copy of the associated documentation is attached for Members only. Further copies are available on the Council’s website at www.Cabinet.leicester.gov.uk or by telephoning Democratic Support on 0116 4546369.

Minutes:

The Director of Local Services and Enforcement submitted a report that required Members to determine an application for a variation of an existing premises licence for Pizza Pan, 745 Aylestone Road, Leicester, LE2 8TG.

 

Members noted that four representations had been received; two from members of the public together with representations from two local Councillors in respect of the application. This necessitated that the application for a variation of an existing licence had to be considered by Members. The report also highlighted the licensing objectives, the relevant parts of the guidance and regulations, and the pertinent sections of the Licensing Authority’s Licensing Policy.

 

The applicant Mr Amardip Singh Rai and Councillor Clarke and Councillor Porter (Members of the Aylestone Ward who had made representations) were present at the hearing. The Licensing Team Manager and the Solicitor to the Sub-Committee were also present. It was noted that two of those who had made representations were not present but one had contacted the Licensing Team Manager to give their apologies and had submitted additional information in support of their representation, which was read out to those present by the Licensing Team Manager. It was stated that not all the objectors’ additional information was relevant to the consideration of the application but it was for the Sub-Committee to consider the relevant points.

 

Introductions were made and the Chair outlined the procedure for the meeting to those present.

 

The Licensing Team Manager presented the report and outlined the details of the application. It was noted from the report that four representations had been received between the 18th September and 28th September 2015 that related to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and sales to underage customers. There were no questions on the report from Members, the Ward Councillors or the applicant.

 

Councillor Clarke and Councillor Porter outlined the reasons for their representations.

 

Mr Amardip Singh Rai was then given the opportunity to outline the details of the application, responded to the points made in the representations and answered questions from Members.

 

All parties were then given the opportunity to sum up their positions and make any final comments.

 

The Solicitor to the Sub-Committee advised Members of the options available to them in making a decision.

 

The Licensing Team Manager, the Solicitor to the Sub-Committee, the applicant and the two Ward Councillors then withdrew from the meeting.

 

The Members then gave the application their full and detailed consideration.

 

The Solicitor to the Sub-Committee was then recalled to give advice on the wording of the decision.

 

The Licensing Manager, the applicant and the two Ward Councillors then returned to the meeting.

 

The Chair informed all present that they had recalled the Solicitor to the Sub-Committee for advice on the wording of their decision.

 

RESOLVED:

That the application for a variation of an existing premises licence for Pizza Pan, 745 Aylestone Road, Leicester, LE2 8TG be refused.

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 

The Sub-Committee had decided not to grant the variation of the licence because the panel had not heard sufficient evidence to satisfythem and to demonstrate to them that the four licencing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm/ sales to underage customers would be upheld. The applicant had not provided any evidence at the hearing that would alleviate the Sub-Committees concerns.

Supporting documents: