Mrs Tracy Hamilton, neighbour of the premises, presented a brief history of their case. The Hamilton’s bought the property in 2004, when the premises closed at 2300 hours and did not have a late license for alcohol and music. Mrs Hamilton said that between 2004 and 2006, there were minor breaches of licensing conditions. A temporary bar structure was erected in the premises car park and a sound system on the bar, with the music audible inside their home.

In 2006, an extension of the licensing hours was approved, and they did not have visibility of the application and had no opportunity to object to it as they were overseas. She noted the licensing blue notice was on the premise’s door, thirty feet from the public footpath and illegible from that distance. Mrs Hamilton also informed that the newspaper notice was placed in the Maidenhead Advertiser newspaper, which was not readily sold in the local area. This was against the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead licensing policing whereby the Applicant must advertise in a local newspaper.

Mrs Hamilton addressed extracts from Environmental Protection’s statement, such as the history of public nuisance complaints of Pazzia and the Noise Abatement Notice being serviced in September 2019. She informed that the al fresco dining area at the front of Pazzia, where the noise abatement notice was situated, had previously been retrospectively refused by Planning and subsequently by the planning inspectorate on two occasions, primarily due to noise impact on the neighbours.

Mr Graham Hamilton provided historical information of the premises, including extension planning application refusals in 2006, 2007 and a gazebo at the front area in 2010, as well as retrospectively approved extension in 2013.

Mrs Hamilton expressed most of the noise and anti-social behaviour was after 2300 hours on Friday and Saturday nights. She stated that since 2006, the Hamilton’s have reported over 250 noise and anti-social behaviour issues to Licensing, Environmental Protection and Thames Valley Police. She made note of the noise diary that logged the noise and anti-social behaviour and stated they may have missed more issues whilst away on the weekends and on holiday.

Mrs Hamilton addressed that sound equipment was installed in her home and Pazzia were made aware of this. The sound recordings played at the hearing were addressed as a small snippet of the noise experienced by them.

Mrs Hamilton stated Pazzia had publicly blamed them for the licensing reviews through the press and social media. She addressed the incident of 15^th September 2019 mentioned earlier between Mr Hamilton and Mr Candido Rodrigues, who tried to kick their front door down and had a large knife at hand. She explained Thames Valley Police offered to monitor their property when the Hamilton’s were on holiday a few weeks after the incident.

Mrs Hamilton said the report from Thames Valley Police and the Community Wardens in the agenda pack shocked and surprised her because the case seemed more serious than they were believed.

Mr Candido Rodrigues interjected Mrs Hamilton’s statement when she addressed that Mr Candido Rodrigues lost his HMO license following court proceedings when he threatened Southwark Council staff in 2015. The Chair said that if Mr Rodrigues could not control himself, he would be asked to wait outside.

She discussed the threats made to Mr and Mrs Hamilton as addressed by Mr Higgs, as well as the incident when Mr Candido Rodrigues trespassed the neighbour’s property when Mr Hamilton requested the music to be turned down at the restaurant. She explained that when the then Cllr Derek Wilson queried the incident in the previous hearing, the premises owner denied knowledge of the incident. Mrs Hamilton highlighted the premises owner had physically assaulted an individual in the restaurant who needed hospital treatment.

Mrs Hamilton explained despite the meetings with the premises and Environmental Protection Lead Officer in January 2018, Pazzia breached the license and had therefore brought the review onto themselves.

Mrs Hamilton said Pazzia’s staff and patrons continued to use the front seating area of the premises after 2200 hours since September 2019, despite the noise abatement notice and warnings. She addressed this was also the case on weekend of the hearing and the Sub-Committee heard the audio recordings from Mrs Hamilton’s mobile phone of Saturday 7^th March 2020 at 2330 hours.

Mrs Hamilton expressed this was a continual drain on public money. Mrs Hamilton raised concern of the threats made to Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and other authorities. She addressed the management of Pazzia London and public comments from the Metropolitan Police. The Chairman stated that the running of other premises and how a license is operated in another area falls outside the scope of this hearing.

Mrs Hamilton quoted statements from community wardens and Thames Valley Police which was available in the agenda pack. This included a report dated 13^th September 2020 where the police were informed by a patron that her sister choked on a screw in the food. This was raised with Pazzia’s Management who were shouting at the customer and the patron felt unsafe as staff yelled at them whilst they left the premises.

Mrs Hamilton addressed a fight that broke out in the car park and spilled onto the public footpath. An audio recording was played of this incidence by Mrs Hamilton’s mobile phone, with men and women shouting.

She explained the antisocial behaviour and death threats effected the neighbours’ general health and wellbeing. Mrs Hamilton proposed the following recommendations for the Sub-Committee to consider:

·         A three-month suspension of licencing activities on the weekends

·         Closure of the premises at 2300 hours at the latest, as it was a residential area and other restaurant close around this time

·         Music to be ceased at 2230 hours

·         Removal of tables, chairs and umbrellas outside the premises where there is no planning permission

·         A seating area for a maximum of 10 people at the front left-hand side of the premises

·         A new smoking area allocated at the rear of the premises

Mrs Hamilton agreed to all but one of the recommendations made by Environmental Protection. She did not support the closure of the premises at 0000 hours on Saturday due to ongoing issues on the weekends. She believed a minor modification of the licensing hours would not have any noticeable effect and stated most of the anti-social behaviour, noise and binge drinking occurred after 2300 hours. Mrs Hamilton stated that the DPS was not managing patrons and suggested stricter penalties to be more appropriate.