Cllr Haseler stated the objectors’ agreed there was significant room for improvement in the January 2019 review of noise and anti-social behaviour and asked what these were. Mr Candido Rodrigues stated that the License Officer at the time had suggested to move the smoking area on the driveway, which Mr Candido Rodrigues found dangerous for patrons due to the presence of moving vehicles. He said Pazzia and the Licensing officer did not come to an agreement. He said they blocked off the smoking area at 2300 hours and could not do this any earlier as patrons dined until then and was difficult to move patrons. He also said that contrary to Mrs Hamilton’s statement, there were no ashtrays on the tables and there were signs on the walls to advise patrons not to make noise. He said he left his position as a chef in Pazzia and worked front of house to control any possible noise from the patrons.

Cllr Haseler asked why the solution to move the outdoor chairs and tables away from the neighbour’s property was not considered earlier. Mr Candido Rodrigues stated this solution was already in place and was agreed with the applicant and Licensing Officer eight or so months prior the hearing.

The Chairman asked if there were any parasols and seating areas at the front of the premises and it was clarified there were two seating areas on the right of the restaurant, and one on the left. The Chairman asked how the area was blocked off on the right-hand side, which was explained to be done by rotating the picnic tables.

Cllr Haseler addressed the recommendation for the CCTV to Thames Valley Police’s specification and is managed accordingly and asked if the current CCTV met this specification and management. Mr Candido Rodrigues said it did not and explained the CCTV was installed four years ago for Piazza’s own interest and was not a condition on the license. He stated that this was installed to monitor patrons and staff. Cllr Haseler advised that the CCTV installation is to protect the premises and others and would be worthwhile to have high quality footage in accordance with the Thames Valley Police standards. Mr Candido Rodrigues explained he also had Ring (smart doorbell) installed and reinstated the police did not cooperate with him regarding the incident on 23^rd February and he made many attempts to contact the police so that they can collect CCTV evidence from the premises. Cllr Haseler asked until when can the footage be accessed, which was stated to be up to a month.

Cllr Haseler asked who the DPS was and was informed that it was Mr Jorge Rodrigues. Cllr Haseler asked how frequently Mr Jorge Rodrigues was at the premises as a DPS, if he was aware of the neighbours’ complaints and if he was aware of his role and responsibility as a DPS. Mr Jorge Rodrigues said he was at the premises on most weekends, three or four times a week. He asserted that the premises made improvements and live music was not an issue at the premises.

Cllr Haseler asked what action the DPS took in relation to the audio recordings of children screaming, as he would be aware of the neighbours who may have complained about the noises. Mr Candido Rodrigues explained that the children were told to lower their voices and admitted they should not have been out that late.

Cllr Brar asked the location of the sign that requested patrons to smoke away from the neighbours’ property. Mr Candido Rodrigues explained the signs were visibly placed inside and outside of the premises and on the side of the driveway. Cllr Brar also asked if the premises complied to the opening hours on special occasions, such as New Years’ Eve. Mr Candido Rodrigues explained this year, he closed the restaurant for 7 days from 23^rd December 2019 and opened on 2^nd January 2020. Mr Candido Rodrigues described an event a few years ago on New Year’s Eve when he erected a marquee attached to the restaurant which he did not have a license for. He explained Mr and Mrs Hamilton’s complained to the Council regrading this. He said Mr and Mrs Hamilton complained by email to Royal Borough Windsor & Maidenhead regarding the marquee prior to going on holiday to Scotland.

The Chairman highlighted the OOH Officer’s witness statement on 26^th October 2019 at 2300 hours, which stated the Officer did not see the DPS managing the behaviour of customers and staff and asked Mr Jorge Rodrigues to elaborate. Mr Jorge Rodrigues explained he was not always outside the premises controlling patron behaviour, but he briefly checked if the behaviour is acceptable. This was because he sometimes undertook waiter duties and was inside the premises. The Chairman asked if Mr Jorge Rodrigues, as a DPS, had the capacity to disperse customers in the evenings, which he stated he did. He affirmed that he would not repeatedly check on customers if a few were smoking outside and it was rare for customers to be behaving in a disruptive manner.

The Chairman asked if the DPS understood his responsibility was to disperse customers, which Mr Jorge Rodrigues agreed and stated he did to the best of his ability. The Chairman addressed that the recommendation for a Security Industry Authority member may have been made to ensure the dispersal of customers is guaranteed, rather than it being done on a part-time basis. The Chairman asked the DPS if he understood the benefit of the quiet dispersal of customers, which Mr Jorge Rodrigues agreed to and said he was at the premises almost full-time on the weekend, which is when the complaints occur the most.

The Chairman asked how else the taxi pick-up locations were enforced, other than the use of signs. Mr Candido Rodrigues explained he spoke to the usual taxi service companies and informed the drivers to go to the back of the car park. The Chairman asked if there were neighbours near the end of the car park and if so, was the disruption from the taxis being moved from one neighbour to the next. Mr Candido Rodrigues explained there were neighbours at the back of the car park and the neighbours did not have any issues from the taxis.

The Chairman confirmed the location of the current smoking area location and asked how the premises owners would stop patrons smoking near the neighbour’s property. Mr Candido Rodrigues said patrons could dine, drink and smoke near the neighbour’s property up until 2300 hours, as the neighbours have raised concerns after this time period. The other side of the premises was closed after 2300 hours and was unavailable to dine, drink or smoke.