To consider an application to review the premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 For Pazzia Restaurant.

The Trading Standards and Licensing Manager, Greg Nelson, introduced the application for Members to consider. Mr Nelson explained that the application related to a review of the existing premises licence for the Pazzia Restaurant. Mr Nelson informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Jorge Pereira Rodrigues was the premises licence holder. Pazzia was situated at London Road, Sunninghill, Ascot SL5 0PN.

Greg Nelson explained that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was acting as both the licensing authority for the premises in question and as a responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003, a responsible authority being a statutory agency or service as prescribed by the Licensing Act. He expressed the importance in ensuring a separation of responsibilities within the local authority to safeguard procedural fairness and to eliminate conflicts of interest. He explained that this had been achieved by him acting as the licensing authority, with another officer, Sarah Conquest, acting as the responsible authority.

Mr Nelson informed the Sub-Committee that that following the receipt of the application to review this premises licence there was a 28-day consultation period. During that time written representations were received from the following responsible authorities;

•                     Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Environmental Protection

•                     Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Licensing team

•                     Thames Valley Police

Mr Nelson said that the Sub-Committee would hear from each of these parties in due course.

Mr Nelson said that representatives of the restaurant were present, and the Sub-Committee would hear from them in due course.

Mr Nelson said that a written representation had also been submitted by Pazzia Restaurant during the consultation period. He said that this should have been included in the agenda papers and apologised that it had not been, but he said that it had been distributed to all parties before this meeting and so all parties had time to read it. The Chairman confirmed that the documents were read by the panel members.

Mr Nelson also stated that Thames Valley Policerequested for an additional piece of evidence to be submitted, which was a report of an incident at the premises on the 23^rd February 2020. This was agreed with the restaurant and had been circulated to all parties.

Mr Nelson also informed the Sub-Committee that Mr and Mrs Hamilton had made representations as an “interested party”, with a direct interest in the application made and they were present at the hearing.

Mr Nelson reminded the Sub-Committee that, when considering this application, they should have consideration for the four licensing objectives set out in the Licencing Act 2003, which were;

·         The Prevention of Crime and Disorder

·         Public Safety

·         The Prevention of Public Nuisance

·         The Protection of Children from Harm

All four objectives should be considered when making their decision, and in this case, the application related to the prevention of public nuisance. He also reminded the Sub-Committee that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Licensing Policy Statement 2016-21 states that the legislation also supports a number of other key aims and purposes. These included:

·         Protecting the public and local residents from crime, anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance caused by irresponsible licensed premises; and,

·         Giving the police and licensing authorities the powers they need to effectively manage and police the night-time economy and take action against those premises that are causing problems

Mr Nelson addressed that the Framework hours that the licensing authority had adopted in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Licensing Policy were a framework and not an entitlement. This includes the Terminal Hour for Licensable Activities in restaurants, which was “No later than 01.00”. He said that the Policy says that the Licensing Authority will have particular regard to those applications relating to premises in close proximity to residential premises, and the likely effect on the promotion of the four licensing objectives in such circumstances.

The other document to be taken into consideration by the Sub-Committee was the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, issued by the Home Office. These were addressed and were available in the Agenda pack.

Mr Nelson informed the Sub-Committee that the Guidance stated that the licensing authority must give appropriate weight to:

·         The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives;

·         The representations (including supporting information) presented by all the parties;

·         The Home Office Guidance; and,

·         Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead’s statement of licensing policy.

Mr Nelson notified the Sub-Committee that a hearing into an application for a variation of the premises licence for the Pazzia restaurant was heard in January 2019. This was to amend the plans for the restaurant to reflect an extension that had been added, and to extend the hours for licensable activity.

The Sub-Committee on that occasion permitted the amendment of the plans for the restaurant to reflect an extension that had been added but refused the application to extend the hours for licensable activity.

There had been objections to the application to extend the hours for licensable activity from Thames Valley Police, Royal Borough of Windsor And Maidenhead Environmental Health, Royal Borough of Windsor And Maidenhead Licensing and from other persons. Each of these drew on the history of issues at the restaurant which this Sub-Committee should be aware of.

Mr Nelson made the Sub-Committee aware of statements made on behalf of these premises by their representative at the January 2019 hearing. At that hearing the representative of Pazzia;

“…stated that there was significant room for improvement and that the premises licence holder was willing to review and improve on the highlighted areas of concern. He highlighted that Pazzia restaurant had been a reputable and successful local business and that they were willing to work with residents for a better solution to the noise and anti-social behaviour concerns”

(Minutes – Licensing Sub-Committee Sub-Committee Thursday 10 January 2019 – page 4 “Applicant’s summary”)

Mr Nelson said that the Guidance set out the steps that the Sub-Committee could take under its statutory powers, as it thought appropriate, and these were:

modify the conditions of the premises licence (which includes adding new conditions or any alteration or omission of an existing condition), for example, by reducing the hours of opening or by requiring door supervisors at particular times;

·         exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence, for example, to exclude the performance of live music or playing of recorded music

·         remove the designated premises supervisor, for example, because they consider that the problems are the result of poor management;

·         suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months;

·         revoke the licence

Mr Nelson informed that the Sub-Committee could impose modifications of conditions and exclusions of licensable activities either permanently or for a temporary period of up to three months. He further informed that any temporary changes or suspension of the licence for up to three months could impact on the business holding the licence financially and would only be expected to be pursued as an appropriate means to promote the licensing objectives or to prevent illegal working.

He stated it was always important that any detrimental financial impact that may have resulted from a licensing authority’s decision was appropriate and proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives, but where premises were found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises.

Mr Nelson made the Sub-Committee aware that an appeal could be made against their decision to a magistrates’ court. He also explained that it was important that the Sub-Committee gave comprehensive reasons for its decisions in anticipation of any appeal. Failure to give adequate reasons could itself give rise to grounds for an appeal.

Mr Nelson said that the applicant in this case had made recommendations to modify the conditions of the licence, and that no recommendations had been made in relation to excluding a licensable activity from the scope of the licence; to removing the designated premises supervisor; to suspending the licence for a period not exceeding three or to revoking the licence.

Greg Nelson reminded the Sub-Committee that their options were to;

·         Grant the application as submitted

·         Modify the conditions of the licence, by altering, omitting or adding to them

·         Reject the whole or part of the application

Mr Nelson thanked the Sub-Committee and was open to questions.