Agendas, reports and minutes

Highland Licensing Committee

Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Minutes: Highand Licensing Committee Minute - 6 August 2013 - Item 10.2 to 16.1

10.2 Premises – Zoom Takeaway, 23 Baron Taylor Street, Inverness

There had been circulated Report No HLC-056-13 (113kb pdf) by the Legal Manager relating to an application for a Late Hours Catering Licence in respect of premises at Zoom Takeaway, 23 Baron Taylor Street, Inverness. The Report invited the Committee to determine the matter in accordance with the hearings procedure.

The Applicant, Mr M Afif, and his Solicitor, Mr G Watson, were present.

The Senior Licensing Officer, Mr Michael Elsey, advised the Committee of a late letter of objection to the application by Police Scotland and Inspector Henderson was then invited to address the Committee as to the reasons for the lateness of the objection.

Inspector Henderson advised that the objection had been submitted late as a result of human error. The applicant already held a late hours catering licence for the premises and, when the 2 April 2013 application had been sent to Police Scotland, it had been assumed that it was an application for renewal of their existing licence. A timeous letter of response advising that the Police had no objection had accordingly been sent. However, it had then come to light that this response was inconsistent with the Police response objecting to another recently lodged application for late hours catering hours which were outwith current Policy Hours. The letter of objection to the applicant’s application had then been submitted, although by the time this occurred the deadline had passed. Inspector Henderson reiterated that this had occurred purely as a result of human error, for which he apologised.

The Committee agreed that they were not minded to accept this human error as “sufficient reason” under Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to the Act and accordingly agreed not to consider the late letter of objection.

The Senior Licensing Officer then advised the Committee that although some of the hours sought in the application were outwith policy, there were no competent objections to the application and the Committee therefore simply had to decide whether they wished to grant the hours requested.

The Chairman then invited Mr Watson to address the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He made the following submissions.

Mr Watson explained that the applicant held a current licence for the premises. This application had to take the form of a new application but was effectively an application to vary the current licence held by the applicant to add additional hours. The additions were:
- on Wednesday and Sunday nights to 3 am the following day (which were both within policy)
- on Friday and Saturday nights to 4 am the following day (which were both outwith policy)

The hours sought for the remaining days of the week were the same as the hours in the applicant’s existing licence.

As the additional hours on Wednesday and Sunday were within Policy Hours, Mr Watson explained that he proposed restricting his submissions to the Friday and Saturday hours applied as these were the only hours which were outwith Policy Hours.
Mr Watson submitted that the applicant had had some reservations about challenging the Authority’s current policy so soon after it had been decided. However, Mr Watson advised that the applicant saw a clear demand for catering facilities for the hours applied for and these were hours which he was prepared to meet. On Fridays and Saturdays after the applicant closed his premises (currently at 3.00 am in accordance with his existing licence) potential customers did knock on his door or rattle his door looking for food. There was therefore, in the applicant’s view, clear demand. Mr Watson suggested that perhaps this was not surprising as most of these potential customers would have come out of nightclubs which closed at 3.00 am.
Mr Watson further submitted that it was quite illogical to close food outlets at the same time as the night clubs closed, as demand for food would be coming from patrons leaving nightclubs. A one hour period of continued opening for the food outlet (after the nightclubs closed) was entirely logical.
He stressed that there had been no objections to the application from local residents or other property owners or occupiers or from the public generally.
The applicant understood that the Committee might have some concerns that extending the hours for his premises might lead to some public nuisance or public disorder. However, Mr Watson advised that the premises were very small premises in Baron Taylor Street. The premises were full when four people were in them. The premises were not capable of serving food at a rate to satisfy the type of number of people who might cause any difficulty or public nuisance in Inverness. The premises could not be compared with MacDonalds.
In addition, the premises were not on any natural or necessary pedestrian route from late night premises to taxi ranks or to the main residential areas in Inverness. Their location in Baron Taylor Street is not immediately adjacent to any entrance or exit of nightclubs. Anybody seeking food from the premises had therefore made a conscious decision to look for something to eat. It would not be an impulse buy just because they happened to be passing a food outlet. The premises would therefore be meeting an actual and real demand and not one which they would be creating by their location and by these additional hours. The premises were located in Baron Taylor Street away from the exit to Miami nightclub. This nightclub did exit onto Baron Taylor Street but patrons exiting the club would either head to Academy Street to the taxi rank or, if they headed towards the premises, they would first of all come to Lombard Street and Drummond Street where they could move to the High Street or down to Union Street. The premises were therefore not on any direct route from Miami. From Mr G’s, the other
big city centre premises in Church Street, patrons would be moving towards taxi ranks in either Academy Street or the High Street and the premises were not on this route.
Mr Watson submitted that in light of the above, the applicant’s position was that the provision of food during these additional hours would meet an entirely reasonable and simple desire for something to eat from patrons who were leaving nightclubs. It would assist in dissipating any nuisance or disorderly formations of late night revellers.
He further submitted that, if noise was one of the things the Committee members might be concerned about, they should recognise that people who were eating had some difficulty in shouting or singing. In addition, availability of food from takeaways avoided the risks associated with people cooking at home. As the fire brigade were apt to remind us, alcohol and deep fat fryers did not mix.
At an earlier item at the Committee meeting, the Committee had affirmed the requirement to have stewards at Late Hours Catering premises from 11.00 pm. Mr Watson advised, however, that the applicant’s business was very quiet between from 11.00 until after midnight. There was very little custom for his premises at that time. The stewarding costs which he had to incur as a result of the Committee’s requirements very often exceeded profits and even income during that period of night. Nevertheless, whilst the applicant certainly accepted and understood the Committee’s requirement that stewarding was required from 11 pm, he reasonably expected the Committee to allow licence holders to trade during periods when they would be able to make additional profits and have additional income to meet the expenses arising from the Committee’s stewarding requirements.

The Chairman then asked the Committee member whether they had any questions to put to Mr Watson.

Councillor Richard Laird asked first if officers could clarify what the terminal hour for the Aces nightclub was, as it was beside this particular premises.

While this information was being sought, the Chairman asked Mr Watson whether, if the Committee were minded not to grant the 4 am hours sought for Friday and Saturday nights but were minded to grant maximum hours within policy (i.e. to 3 am) on those nights, the applicant would wish to accept this?

At this point, there was a break in the video conferencing link through which Committee member, Councillor Willie Mackay, was attending the meeting from Wick. The meeting accordingly adjourned until the link was restored.

The meeting having been reconvened following resumption of the video conferencing link, the Chairman repeated her question to Mr Watson as to whether, if the Committee were not minded to grant the hours which were outwith Policy Hours, the applicant would wish to proceed with the application on the basis that the hours sought be restricted to Policy Hours.

Mr Watson advised that the answer to that was very definitely yes. If the Committee were not minded to grant the Friday and Saturdays extensions to 4.00 am the applicant would certainly wish the hours that were within the Board’s policy or perhaps even on Friday and Saturday until 3.30 am.

Councillor Laird then asked whether the Clerk could now answer his question as to the terminal hour at Aces nightclub. The Clerk confirmed that this was 3 am.

Councillor Laird then asked Mr Watson whether, given that the applicant’s argument was very much predicated upon there being no late opening premises beside the applicant’s premises, and now that it had been established that there was one next door which actually shut at 3 am, was there anything he wanted to revise in his argument?

Mr Watson advised that he was not familiar with any late night premises which were next door to the applicant’s premises and asked Councillor Laird to clarify which premises he was referring to. Councillor Laird advised that he had been referring to the Aces nightclub which was at the back of Miami nightclub and which was the side entrance to that premises.

Mr Watson responded that he had been grouping that premises with Miami nightclub and treating them as the same premises but he thought he had said that people exiting Miami would do so either on to the High Street or on to Baron Taylor Street. People coming to Baron Taylor Street would come out of those premises and turn right to Academy Street for a taxi rank. If they turned left along Baron Taylor Street towards the applicant’s premises they would first of all come to Lombard Street and to Drummond Street where they would further dissipate up to the taxi ranks at the High Street or down to Union Street.

The Chairman commented that people could go whichever way they chose at the end of the day. She then clarified that there were no further questions which Committee members wished to put to Mr Watson and then invited Mr Watson to sum up and add any further points he wished to make before the Committee began the debate.

Mr Watson summed up as follows.

At the outset he had indicated that the applicant had reservations about challenging the Committee’s policy so soon after it had been made. However, he reminded the Committee that the Clerk, during discussion of an earlier agenda item, had indicated that there was no legal reason why the Committee could not depart from that policy as long as the Committee had cogent and persuasive reasons for doing so and that the Clerk had also advised that this would not necessarily set a precedent for future applications.
Mr Watson suggested that the cogent and persuasive reasons in the applicant’s case were the size of these premises. They were really so small as to be inconsequential from a public nuisance concern point of view.
Nevertheless the applicant was not seeking any concession, on grounds of the size of the premises, on the Committee’s requirements for stewarding. No matter how small the premises were they required to incur expense in connection with stewarding. And this lead back to the point Mr Watson had made earlier that, if imposing those stewarding expenses, it was only fair that the Committee should also allow licence holders the opportunity to trade to meet those expenses and to keep their premises up to the standards required.
The applicant’s position was that he regularly worked over 80 hours a week in keeping his business going. He was a very entrepreneurial gentleman, and he was ready and willing to work just whenever there was demand for the services he provided. This was fundamentally the reason why he was looking for additional hours on Fridays and Saturdays outwith the Board’s policy.
In conclusion, in the absence of any competent objections to the application, Mr Watson accordingly invited the Committee to grant the application either as applied for or in some restricted form if the committee were not inclined to grant any hours outwith their policy.

Councillor Allan Henderson opened the debate indicating that he was not persuaded that the small size of the premises was sufficient reason to go against Policy.

Councillor Laird agreed, advising that the arguments he had made against granting hours outwith policy, sought in respect of the previous application, also stood for this one (those arguments being that it could realistically be assumed that the later catering hours sought would prolong the time it took for nightclub patrons to disperse, giving rise to a possibility of public nuisance). He also considered that given that the premises were as small as the applicant had said they were, there was a real risk there would be queuing at the door and along Baron Taylor Street. This could have a real effect on public amenity as it could give rise to public nuisance. Although customers might have difficulty singing and shouting while they were eating, the same would not be true while they were queuing. Consequently, Councillor Laird indicated would be inclined to refuse this application as it stood.

The Chairman agreed, commenting also that there were a lot of residential properties in the vicinity of the premises. She asked Mr Watson to clarify whether the applicant would be happy to accept the Policy Hours .

The Clerk sought clarification of this from Mr Watson asking whether he now sought hours to 3.00 am on Friday and Saturday.

Mr Watson confirmed that he did, if those were the maximum hours that the Committee were prepared to grant.

Councillor Hamish Wood sought clarification as to whether stewarding was to be required from 11 pm, as he was under the impression that the applicant was asking for this to be changed. It was clarified that stewarding would be required from 11 pm.

It was then confirmed that the Committee AGREED to grant the application, amended as agreed by Mr Watson on behalf of the applicant at the hearing, to give full Policy Hours as follows:

on Monday and Tuesday to midnight,
on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday to 3 am the following day

11. The Committee resolved that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

12. Private Landlord Registration – Rent Penalty Notices
Clàradh Uachdarain Phrìobhaidich – Brathan Ùnnlagh Màil

There had been circulated, to members only, Report No HLC/057/13 by the Legal Manager detailing Landlords who had failed to register under Part 8 of The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. The Committee wass invited to authorise the service of Rent Penalty Notices in respect of the properties detailed.

The Committee AGREED to authorise the service of the Fixed Penalty Notices in respect of the properties detailed in the Schedule attached to the Report.

13. Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
Application for a Window Cleaner’s Licence
Achd Riaghaltais Chatharra (Alba) 1982
Iarrtas airson Cead Neach-glanadh-uinneagan

13.1 Application for a Window Cleaner’s Licence

There had been circulated, to members only, Report No HLC/058/13 by the Legal Manager relating to an application from Mr Robin MacBeth for a Window Cleaner’s Licence. The Report invited the Committee to determine the matter in accordance with the hearings procedure.

The Applicant, Mr Robin MacBeth, was present.

Mr MacBeth stated that he had identified an opening locally for a window cleaner’s business and was preparing a Business Plan. He had been self-employed many times. Mr MacBeth had submitted several references.

The Committee AGREED to grant the application subject to the standard conditions.

14. Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
Hearing – Taxi Driver’s Licence
Achd Riaghaltais Chatharra (Alba) 1982
Èisteachd – Ceadachd Oibriche Tagsaidh

14.1 Licence Holder – Kevin Clark

There had been circulated, to members only, Report No HLC/059/13 by the Legal Manager relating to a Licensed Taxi Driver – Kevin Clark. The Report invited the Committee to determine the matter in accordance with the hearings procedure.