Mr Candido Rodrigues explained Pazzia has been open since October 2000 and Mr and Mrs Hamilton were regular customers. He said they had a friendly relationship with the neighbours, looked after Mr and Mrs Hamilton’s parents when they came from Scotland and offered complimentary meals. He said the neighbours used to come to Pazzia for a drink. Mr Candido Rodrigues addressed an incident where Mrs Hamilton attended a party at Pazzia uninvited and drank parties’ alcoholic beverages and was later taken to her home by Mr Hamilton.

Mr Candido Rodrigues said the turning point to the relationship with the neighbours was when the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead gave Pazzia permission to have tables outside the premises to serve up to 40 people. Mrs Hamilton queried the outdoor seating, which he explained was for the business. Mrs Hamilton stated it was not a good idea and did not speak to Mr Candido Rodrigues since this incident.

Mr Candido Rodrigues explained that Mrs Hamilton attempted to create a petition with neighbours’ support against Pazzia but was unsuccessful. He said there were twenty neighbours, five of which commented that they are not disturbed by Pazzia with supporting letters provided in the supplementary item.

Lorraine Barnes said the neighbours closest to Pazzia were at the rear of the premises, who confirmed they had no issues of disturbance or had any complaints. She explained that Morton Cottage was on the other side of Pazzia with residents who have resided there for 6 and 18 months respectively and have never had any complaints.  She stated if there was disturbance created by the premises, these neighbours would also be affected, but they have promoted the restaurant. She quoted the letter from a local resident available in the pack which stated that Pazzia was a wonderful service to the local people and an asset to the area.

Lorraine Barnes queried the alleged incident on 23^rd February 2019 addressed by Debie Pearmain, as the CCTV footage at the premises inside and outside the premises at that date and time did not show any activity. The Sub-Committee was shown the CCTV footage. Mr Candido Rodrigues stated he reviewed the CCTV footage from the evening of 22^nd February until 23^rd February and did not see any activity and stated the police did not check his CCTV footage regarding this incident despite him calling the police on three occasions.

Mr Candido Rodrigues explained that the noise recordings dated Sunday 2^nd June 2019 were not from patrons but from his 4-year-old son’s private birthday, with other younger children playing outside at the party. He explained that the recordings of the screaming were children and not an attack, and the noise was a “one-off” for a private children’s birthday party. Mr Jorge Rodrigues emphasised that the loud screams in the recording sounded like it was a fight but was children playing and laughing.

Lorraine Barnes addressed the fight incident dated 18^th May 2019 at 0030 hours, which stated glass was smashed and “furniture thrown around” in Pazzia’s car park/seating area. She expressed that should this have occurred, significant noise would have been audible, and requested to hear this recording.

The Applicant said they do have the recording of this incident, but due to personal information disclosure in the audio, Mr and Mrs Hamilton did not give permission to release the recording. He confirmed he listened to the recording and made a summary of the recording listed available in the agenda pack. The Chairman asked the Applicant if the recording was available at the hearing and queried what personal details were present in the recording that made it unviable to be shared at the hearing. The Applicant explained the recording had details of Mr and Mrs Hamilton calling the police regarding the incident. The Chairman said as the audio was not present at the hearing, it would be weighted accordingly.

Lorraine Barnes addressed the NTE team visit notes of the premises and stated that these were snapshots taken on the weekends and in the late hours, and showed no significant incidences taken place. She expressed these were not general and random checks, but timed visits for when breach of the license was expected, of which there were few.

She continued that since the loud music incident on 20^th April 2019, where it was recommend installing noise monitoring equipment at the neighbours’ property, there had not been recordings of loud music from the premises. She said Pazzia did not see music as an issue, yet one of the recommendations from the Applicant suggested removing music from the premises. She addressed many of the images provided by Mr and Mrs Hamilton were outside of the time periods discussed in the hearing and requested the Sub-Committee to take note of this.

Lorraine Barnes explained Pazzia proposed to move the smoking solution and outdoor seating away from the neighbours’ property as a proportionate measure to stop the disturbance for Mr and Mrs Hamilton. She expressed the difficulty of moving the smoking solution at the side of the building as it was also a driveway leading to the car park, which would risk patrons’ safety because of passing cars. She stated that at 2300 hours, the smoking solution nearest the neighbours’ property was already blocked off to reduce disturbance.

She furthered that Pazzia advised to move the taxi pick-up and drop-off at the back of the car park, accompanied with signs on the premises for this instruction to resolve loitering at the premises. She mentioned that recommendations 3, 5 and 6 stated in the agenda pack were agreed in any event and expressed Pazzia already has digital CCTV installed inside and outside the premises.

Lorraine Barnes addressed recommendation 7 and said there is no outdoor singing and entertainment at the premises. She furthered that live music played at the premises was a main attraction for the business, therefore the restriction to playing live music because of one occasion of noise was disproportionate and would lead to the loss in clientele.

Lorraine Barnes addressed that recommendation 4, which recommended a Security Industry Authority (SIA) member of staff, was a restriction similar to a night club instead of a family restaurant. She said this would adversely impact the business because of the negative impression of a ‘bouncer’ present at the front door of the premises and said there were no drug concerns at the premises.

She concluded that by deterring patrons from loitering at the front of the premises and smoking away from the neighbour’s property, the nuisance would be reduced. Therefore, there was no need to reduce the opening hours which would have an adverse effect on the business and the enjoyment of those who attended Pazzia.

Mr Candido Rodrigues stated the success of his business for the last nineteen years with several famous clients.