Mr Candido Rodrigues, who was involved in the running of the premises, explained that when the sound recordings were taken, the neighbours’ windows were open. He said the premises had CCTV cameras installed for the last five years and asked the Applicant if he was aware of the CCTV cameras. The Applicant said that as per the standard condition from license and police requirements, CCTV cameras were required to be installed but was unaware if something to that effect was installed at Pazzia. The Applicant clarified he made no allegations that would need to be substantiated by CCTV cameras as his evidence was from sound recordings and officer visits.

Mr Candido Rodrigues asked if the Applicant agreed he came to the premises to have a conversation on 20^th August 2019 or if this conversation took place over the phone. It was confirmed that a Licensing Officer had a conversation over the phone regarding the lack of application for a variation in the licence.

Mr Candido Rodrigues wanted verification that Environmental Protection wanted Pazzia to implement signs on the doors for taxis and patrons to control noise outside the premises. The Applicant verified the additional request for signs to be placed near the tables and outdoor seating beneath the neighbours’ window were implemented.

Mr Candido Rodrigues asked for verification that he showed the Applicant the CCTV footage when complaints were received from the neighbours. The Applicant confirmed he was shown CCTV recordings on the phone by the licensee, and he had requested the footage to be submitted to Environmental Protection, but this did not materialise. He stated no fighting was witnessed in the recording, in line with the OOH Officer’sobservations of people talking and mingling outside the premises but said disorderly behaviour may have occurred.

Mr Candido Rodrigues expressed live music was played inside the premises and was not audible from outside the premises. The Applicant said he did not directly hear audible music outside the premises or via the nearest residential property. He clarified that from the recordings, it can be concluded that music was not a significant issue. Instead, the application was concerning the raised voices, loud exhaust noise and disorderly public behaviour.

Mr Candido Rodrigues asked if the audio recordings taken by the neighbours were with the bedroom windows open. The Applicant stated that he was not personally there and therefore did not witness this and he could only refer to the witness statement and noise audible from the recordings, presumably from closed double-glazed glassed windows.

Lorraine Barnes, the Objector’s representative, repeated the question, to which the Applicant replied that the recordings could be made with the windows open or closed, and that individuals were entitled to leaving their windows open or closed. The Chairman stated that this can be clarified by Mr and Mrs Hamilton, the neighbours, who took the audio recordings.

Ms Barnes addressed the evidence from the agenda pack regarding the NTE warden visits to the premises. She queried if the Applicant accepted that in most occasions, the wardens had nothing to report, and a lot of the incidences underlined and highlighted in the agenda pack showed people outside the premises with no disturbances. The Applicant accepted this.

The Chairman thanked the Applicant for answering the questions.