Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as set out below: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) Monday to Sunday 06:00 – 23:00 subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 7 of the report (being the Applicant’s proposed conditions). The Applicant amended its premises application during the hearing by in effect reducing the terminable hour by an hour (23:00 rather than 00:00). The Applicant advised that it currently intends to trade at the premises commensurate with the hours granted for the Licensable Activity, then the Licensable Activity of Late Night Refreshment (which is only required after 23:00) was no longer sought. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee gave regard to the four licensing objectives. There were no representations regarding public safety or the protection of children from harm. The single representation received [Environmental Health (Pollution Team)] principally involved regard to the prevention of public nuisance, and to an extent, the prevention of crime and disorder. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises had not yet opened to trade and that a similar business has not operated on the premises site previously. The Sub-Committee considered that the concerns of the Responsible Authority in terms of the prevention of public nuisance being undermined were largely anticipatory. The principal concern was noise associated with vehicles, foot fall on pavement and general late night noise associated with gatherings of small groups who may have been drinking. The Sub-Committee took into consideration the proximity of the premises to the presence of residential terrace housing across the road. The Sub-Committee determined that the greatest risk to the promotion of this licensing objective in this instance was late at night, as opposed to early morning. The Sub-Committee accepted the Applicant’s evidence that alcohol purchases in its commensurate stores in the UK between 6am and 7am was negligible. It was very unlikely that noise nuisance would be caused on account of customers attending the premises between 6am and 7am to purchase alcohol. The Sub-Committee accepted that the amended terminable hour removed a significant degree of risk to undermining this licensing objective. The risk of train passengers returning at a late hour after possibly consuming alcohol in the larger metropolitan areas of South Wales proceeding to walk to the premises to purchase alcohol between 23:00 and midnight, perhaps in small groups, chatting and potentially talking and shouting to other persons in the vicinity – would be removed given the amendment of the application by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee accepted that this same risk remained for earlier hours but the effect of any such noise would have arguably less adverse impact prior to 23:00 than after 23:00. The Sub-Committee also gave weight to no resident representations being received as part of the premises application. On balance the Sub-Committee judged that this licensing objective could be promoted by allowing the Licensable Activity to be conducted on the days and hours sought by the Applicant in its amended application. Prevention of Crime and Disorder The Sub-Committee gave significant weight to the lack of representation opposing the application from Gwent Police. In doing so, it accepted the Applicant’s submission that the police should be considered to be the experts on this particular licensing objective, and the lack of representation could be taken as showing that the premises was not located in an area that was an existing hot spot for crime and disorder. Notwithstanding, the Sub-Committee did not reach a view that the Responsible Authority’s representations in respect of this licensing objectives to be irrelevant. It seemed common sense that any disorder arising from the premises, such as a refusal of service objected to by the prospective customer at the Premises, during a late hour, is very likely to generate noise which bleeds across to the earlier discussed licensing objective. The Sub-Committee were persuaded, and in any event appeared to be common ground between the parties, that the Applicant is vastly experienced in successfully managing this licensable activity incorporated within its enterprise and has a series of systems in place to promote the licensing objectives. This was a significant factor in assessing whether this licensing objective would be promoted. On balance, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that this licensing objective would be adequately promoted under the amended application. Whilst the risk of disorder is always to a degree present, the Sub-Committee took the view that the risk of such increases during the later hours of the night or early hours of the morning. The terminable hour of 23:00 was sufficient to mitigate against such risk and as such adequately promotes this licensing objective. Planning consent The Sub-Committee were cognisant that the licensing and planning regimes run independently of each other. It was abundantly clear that the Applicant was aware of the current planning restriction on its hour of opening (07:00) is discordant with the licensable activity daily start time (06:00). The current planning approval did not factor in any significant way in the Sub-Committee’s ultimate decision. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court.
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr P. Cook
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as set out below: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) Monday to Sunday 06:00 – 23:00 subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 7 of the report (being the Applicant’s proposed conditions). The Applicant amended its premises application during the hearing by in effect reducing the terminable hour by an hour (23:00 rather than 00:00). The Applicant advised that it currently intends to trade at the premises commensurate with the hours granted for the Licensable Activity, then the Licensable Activity of Late Night Refreshment (which is only required after 23:00) was no longer sought. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee gave regard to the four licensing objectives. There were no representations regarding public safety or the protection of children from harm. The single representation received [Environmental Health (Pollution Team)] principally involved regard to the prevention of public nuisance, and to an extent, the prevention of crime and disorder. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises had not yet opened to trade and that a similar business has not operated on the premises site previously. The Sub-Committee considered that the concerns of the Responsible Authority in terms of the prevention of public nuisance being undermined were largely anticipatory. The principal concern was noise associated with vehicles, foot fall on pavement and general late night noise associated with gatherings of small groups who may have been drinking. The Sub-Committee took into consideration the proximity of the premises to the presence of residential terrace housing across the road. The Sub-Committee determined that the greatest risk to the promotion of this licensing objective in this instance was late at night, as opposed to early morning. The Sub-Committee accepted the Applicant’s evidence that alcohol purchases in its commensurate stores in the UK between 6am and 7am was negligible. It was very unlikely that noise nuisance would be caused on account of customers attending the premises between 6am and 7am to purchase alcohol. The Sub-Committee accepted that the amended terminable hour removed a significant degree of risk to undermining this licensing objective. The risk of train passengers returning at a late hour after possibly consuming alcohol in the larger metropolitan areas of South Wales proceeding to walk to the premises to purchase alcohol between 23:00 and midnight, perhaps in small groups, chatting and potentially talking and shouting to other persons in the vicinity – would be removed given the amendment of the application by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee accepted that this same risk remained for earlier hours but the effect of any such noise would have arguably less adverse impact prior to 23:00 than after 23:00. The Sub-Committee also gave weight to no resident representations being received as part of the premises application. On balance the Sub-Committee judged that this licensing objective could be promoted by allowing the Licensable Activity to be conducted on the days and hours sought by the Applicant in its amended application. Prevention of Crime and Disorder The Sub-Committee gave significant weight to the lack of representation opposing the application from Gwent Police. In doing so, it accepted the Applicant’s submission that the police should be considered to be the experts on this particular licensing objective, and the lack of representation could be taken as showing that the premises was not located in an area that was an existing hot spot for crime and disorder. Notwithstanding, the Sub-Committee did not reach a view that the Responsible Authority’s representations in respect of this licensing objectives to be irrelevant. It seemed common sense that any disorder arising from the premises, such as a refusal of service objected to by the prospective customer at the Premises, during a late hour, is very likely to generate noise which bleeds across to the earlier discussed licensing objective. The Sub-Committee were persuaded, and in any event appeared to be common ground between the parties, that the Applicant is vastly experienced in successfully managing this licensable activity incorporated within its enterprise and has a series of systems in place to promote the licensing objectives. This was a significant factor in assessing whether this licensing objective would be promoted. On balance, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that this licensing objective would be adequately promoted under the amended application. Whilst the risk of disorder is always to a degree present, the Sub-Committee took the view that the risk of such increases during the later hours of the night or early hours of the morning. The terminable hour of 23:00 was sufficient to mitigate against such risk and as such adequately promotes this licensing objective. Planning consent The Sub-Committee were cognisant that the licensing and planning regimes run independently of each other. It was abundantly clear that the Applicant was aware of the current planning restriction on its hour of opening (07:00) is discordant with the licensable activity daily start time (06:00). The current planning approval did not factor in any significant way in the Sub-Committee’s ultimate decision. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.
The Chairman opened the meeting and introductions were made. The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing Manager, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from the responsible authority who had objected to the application. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application submitted for a variation to the premises licence in respect of Tesco Express Former Newbridge Methodist Church, Bridge Street, Newbridge NP11 5FH. The application sought to permit the following Licensable Activities: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) · Late Night Refreshment · Monday to Sunday 06:00 – 00:00 The Committee were advised that no construction or alteration work had commenced on site. The Licensing Manager then referred to representations received in relation to the application from the Environmental Health Pollution Team as a Responsible Authority and these objections were set out within the report at 1.5. to 1.5.2. Copies of which were circulated with the agenda. There were no other objections from any other Responsible Authorities or residents. Members were advised that the comments of the Pollution Team Officer had been sent to the applicant and that to date, there had not been a formal response from the applicant. Attention was then drawn to the local policy considerations as set out at 1.6 within the report and to the way in which the Sub Committee should deal with the application. It was explained that the Sub Committee must have regard to the Licensing Objectives, Section 182 Home Office Guidance and the council’s own statement of licensing policy, the information in the report and the representations made and to the evidence heard at the meeting. The Chair sought clarification as to whether or not planning had been approved for the conversion into a Tesco Express. The Licensing Manager advised that the applicant would be able to provide an update when they present their submissions. The Chair invited the applicant to make their submissions. Mr J. Bark (Solicitor representing Tesco Express) addressed the Sub Committee and advised that the Landlord had pursued a planning application for change of use and that this was now in place with the hours that the EHO was seeking in terms of the premises licence. It was also confirmed that Tesco would be seeking to vary the planning consent in line with the hours that were being pursued today. The Committee were referred to the Government guidance section 182 and the Councils policy and it was stated that there was no evidence of crime disorder to restrict the hours sought. The Committee were advised that conversations had taken place with the EHO Officer and Ms H Purewal and it was a difference of opinion on the hours. Mr Bark provided the Committee with an explanation on why Tesco had applied for late night refreshment, all Tesco stores use hot drinks vending machines which are licensable as people purchase a token to use the machines as Tesco wants to have more control on what was sold in the store, instead of people putting money into the machines which would not licensable. Tesco would be content with adding that condition if the hours were to be granted. The Committee were provided with a detailed background of what Tesco Express Stores offer and how each of those stores operate particularly with the sale of alcohol products. Members were informed that Tesco has many policies in place to ensure that they promote best practice . Members were advised how Tesco have great relationships on both local and National levels and Ms Purewal was instrumental in setting up the Retail Alcohol Strategy Group, where all leading Supermarkets and Convenience Stores get together and share best practice and Ms Purewal was the Director of the Community Alcohol Partnerships(CAP) where Tesco was one of the founding people to get involved. Mr Bark covered aspects of the policies Tesco have in relation to the sale of alcohol from where the alcohol was stored within the stores, the think 25 Policy and how staff are trained in how to deal with the refusal of selling alcohol to anyone where there were concerns. It was highlighted that Tesco’s training in relation to alcohol and age restricted products was the only trading in the off licence sector to have won the British Institute of Inn Keeping Good Practice recognition scheme award. Ms Purewal keeps reviewing the policies and updates them when required. Members were referred to the location of alcohol within the stores on page 10 of the pack and were advised that there would be CCTV cameras covering these areas as well as the positioning of the alcohol by the tills so the area would always be supervised. There would be a management team of four and between 12 to 18 other staff employed depending on the ratio of full time/part time employees. There would be a panic button installed which goes to a permanently 24/7 manned office elsewhere in the country who can access into the Tannoy and CCTV systems to provide assistance, the front door would be lockable by those on the checkout if any problems where to occur and there would also be a 15 minute response team who would be contacted to go and support the team in the event of any difficult situation. Mr Bark concluded by stating that there were no objections from any of the other Responsible Authorities and the objection from the EHO was purely an objection on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance, but there was no evidence of this as the store was not open yet and stated that given what he had explained about all the systems Tesco had in place and that the nearest store to this location was in Bridgewater approximately 2.7 miles away where the licence hours are 6:00 to 11:00 every day of the week and there are no problems at that store, then the application should be granted. The Chair queried if Tesco could confirm what percentage of people look to purchase alcohol between 11:00 and midnight. It was confirmed that there was no percentage figure available and would depend on the location and size of the store but for the location of this store it was expected that the predominant amount of trade would be expected to be 9:30 to 11:00 in the morning and then between 4:30 to 8:00 in the evening would be the peak. It was expected that there would be more sales of alcohol in the evenings. There would be limited types of alcohol products on sale. The Chair expressed concerns about the hour between 11:00 and midnight as this would be the only premises individuals could go to purchase alcohol. Mr Bark advised that there were a couple of other places open nearby, and that Tesco would monitor how trade was going and if there was zero trade they would pull back the hours to 11:00PM. It was not envisaged that this area would become a hotspot for people to come and purchase alcohol and gather there. All the systems would be in place to prevent the sale of alcohol or deal with any situations if they were to occur. The Chair commented that if the hours suggested by the EHO and given that Tesco would voluntarily pull back the hour to 11:00PM it would not impact too much on what Tesco were looking to offer. Mr Bark stated that Tesco were looking to open until midnight, and it was more about looking at the evidence of whether it would cause problems under the licensing objectives, there was no evidence that it was a problem area which was reinforced by the fact that the police and local residents had not submitted any objections. Clarification was sought on the Licensing Managers comment that no formal response had been received following the representations by the EHO and queried whether that was correct. Mr Bark confirmed that there had been many conversations between the EHO and Ms Purewal and there was a difference of opinions around the hours and the policies and guidance on reaching an agreement and given there were no other objections a decision on how this could be resolved would need to be made by the Sub Committee A Member commented that there was a secondary school close to the location of the new premises and there would be an increase in trade with students calling into the store and stated that they were aware some stores restrict access to students unless they were accompanied by adults and asked whether this would apply in the store. Mr Bark confirmed that Tesco does a lot of background work when determining the locations for their stores and that Tesco has a number of stores that operate in close proximity to schools. Tesco would look to work with the school and have a good dialogue with the schools to establish and understand what goes on within the area and to see what can be put in place to prevent any issues which could mean that they implement restrictions on the numbers of students in the store at a time. Ms Purewal added that employees would be employed from within the local area who would be familiar with the area and the local residents as well as experienced staff. If there was any issues or problems with students from the school discussions with the Head to seek to resolve any of those issues. Ms Purewal has also provided the EHO with her contact details and confirmed that she was happy to be contacted direct immediately with any issues that needed to be addressed to prevent the problems escalating and this was all part of Tesco’s neighbour policy to work with the local communities. The Chair thanked the applicant and representative and invited the Responsible Authorities to make their representations. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) referred to their representations with the suggested hours would be suitable in the location. The Officer stated that after listening to representations from Mr Bark and Ms Purewal and what Tesco implement in terms of the sale and retail of alcohol was not for debate and the suggested hours was not a slur against Tesco as an operator as they are to be applauded on many fronts for their projects and for their vigilance in terms of sales and underage sales. The representations were based purely on the location of the premises within a quiet area of Newbridge and concern was expressed for residents who had lived in the area where the church and been closed for a number of years and the change of use to a Tesco Express would affect the residents who live opposite the site. Concerns were expressed about the hour between 11:00PM and midnight and the impact this would have on the local residents, the noise from the car park and this could see commuters arriving from the train station could result in it being a haven for late night revellers causing a public nuisance whilst going to the store or leaving, which would have an effect on local residents. It was confirmed that there was no evidence that this area would be a problem area as it had been pointed out by Mr Bark that the store had not opened yet. The Officer referred to comments from Mr Bark on the Tesco Store in Bridgewater and advised that Bridgewater was not within Caerphilly County Borough and did not feel that this could be compared with the location of the premises planned for Newbridge. Referring to the location, the Officer confirmed that there was a fabrication facility to the right of Bridge Street that operates between the hours of 9:00AM to 5:00PM and emphasised that the increase in noise levels for residents who currently live in a quiet area was the grounds for the objections. The Officer requested confirmation from the Chair that he could comment that he was surprised that the Police had not submitted objections. The Chair confirmed that he was able to raise it. The Officer confirmed that he was aware of known anti-social behaviour in the area and with local knowledge that Newbridge town centre in recent years had been subjected to localised temporary exclusion zones in the evening and weekend periods through Gwent Police and local police officers with the introduction of an exclusion zone preventing gatherings of multiple gangs. The location of the new premises would be on the outer extremities of the town centre exclusion zone and asked that it be mindful that people could be displaced to other areas outside of the exclusion zone. It was agreed that the 15 minute support response team available to Tesco staff if needed was to be applauded, however there was concerns for the noise levels particularly if there was screaming or shouting from a disgruntled customer or anyone trying to access the store in the late hours causing a disturbance to residents. The Chair thanked the EHO and agreed that the concern was regarding the sale of alcohol for the hour 11:00 to midnight and that there was no concern regarding Tesco’s ability to manage the sale of alcohol or conduct their business. Discussion ensued on the rational for the suggested hours made in the representations had been taken from a reference point of the permitted hours of operation under the planning regime, which is what the planning application currently has been applied for. The Chair addressed Mr Bark and asked if it was a fair assessment that the position was that Tesco would like to operate and sell alcohol from 6:00AM until midnight the EHO were opposing the hour 11:00PM until Midnight. Mr Bark confirmed that yes that was the case, however following discussions with Ms Purewal during the meeting and seeking to alleviate the concerns that the Committee had, a compromise could be put forward to amend the application to seek the hours of 6:00AM until 11:00PM daily, and also remove the late night refreshment issue too. Mr Bark referred to the comments from the EHO with regards to the police not making any representations and reiterated that the police had raised no concerns or objections to the application which would be a positive thing. The Chair thanked Mr Bark and asked if the amendment to the application would be acceptable to the Responsible Authority. The EHO Officer confirmed that he would not be against the suggested amendments. Clarification was sought on what would the implications be if a lot of complaints were received and queried whether a licensing review could be called if there were any issues with anti-social behaviour and complaints were received. The Licensing Manager confirmed that any Responsible Authority or residents would have the ability subject to there being relevant representations and evidence of undermining of the licensing objectives to request a review be undertaken. The EHO requested to put on record his thanks to the Ms Purewal for the offer to work with the Responsible Authority and local residents in the event of any issues by her being the point of contact. Discussion ensued regarding the opening time of 6:00AM and it was confirmed that an application to vary the planning application to 6:00AM would be submitted to enable the sale of alcohol from 6AM if the licencing committee approved the suggested amended times. The Chair sought clarification on where Tesco was with the application to vary the planning application. Mr Bark confirmed that this would all depend on what the licensing committee approved. Ms Purewal confirmed that the application would be submitted to vary the planning application to the hours of 6:00AM to midnight for trading hours and that if the compromise of hours is approved by licensing, then there would be no sale of alcohol between the hours of 11:00PM and midnight. The Chair thanked all parties, and all parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. In closing the Licensing Manager asked Members to consider the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting which included the amended hours proposed by the applicant of 6:00AM to 11:00PM every day and removing the request for late night refreshment, and all Licensing guidance when making their decision. The Sub Committee were reminded of the need to consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives and whether the applicant would be able to meet the same. The Licensing Manager detailed that he had nothing further to add. The Responsible Authority for Environmental Pollution Team confirmed they had nothing further to add. The Applicant and representative felt that the original application should be approved as there were no other representations and no evidence to deny the application however after hearing the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee and responsible authority the applicant would think that the amended application would promote the licensing objectives and if there were any problems there were sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with them. It was that the applicant had nothing further to add other than to thank everyone who attended the Committee. The Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed in writing of the decision in the next 5 days. The Chair thanked all parties and wished them all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and drew the meeting to a close. The Sub Committee retired at 11.05AM to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. Following consideration of the application for a new premises licence at Tesco Express Former Newbridge Methodist Church, Bridge Street, Newbridge NP11 5FH and having regard to the Licensing Manager’s report and all the representations made, the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee unanimously, RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence be GRANTED, subject to the conditions as set out below: · Supply of Alcohol (Off Sales only) Monday to Sunday 06:00 – 23:00 subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 7 of the report (being the Applicant’s proposed conditions). The Applicant amended its premises application during the hearing by in effect reducing the terminable hour by an hour (23:00 rather than 00:00). The Applicant advised that it currently intends to trade at the premises commensurate with the hours granted for the Licensable Activity, then the Licensable Activity of Late Night Refreshment (which is only required after 23:00) was no longer sought. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee gave regard to the four licensing objectives. There were no representations regarding public safety or the protection of children from harm. The single representation received [Environmental Health (Pollution Team)] principally involved regard to the prevention of public nuisance, and to an extent, the prevention of crime and disorder. Prevention of Public Nuisance The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises had not yet opened to trade and that a similar business has not operated on the premises site previously. The Sub-Committee considered that the concerns of the Responsible Authority in terms of the prevention of public nuisance being undermined were largely anticipatory. The principal concern was noise associated with vehicles, foot fall on pavement and general late night noise associated with gatherings of small groups who may have been drinking. The Sub-Committee took into consideration the proximity of the premises to the presence of residential terrace housing across the road. The Sub-Committee determined that the greatest risk to the promotion of this licensing objective in this instance was late at night, as opposed to early morning. The Sub-Committee accepted the Applicant’s evidence that alcohol purchases in its commensurate stores in the UK between 6am and 7am was negligible. It was very unlikely that noise nuisance would be caused on account of customers attending the premises between 6am and 7am to purchase alcohol. The Sub-Committee accepted that the amended terminable hour removed a significant degree of risk to undermining this licensing objective. The risk of train passengers returning at a late hour after possibly consuming alcohol in the larger metropolitan areas of South Wales proceeding to walk to the premises to purchase alcohol between 23:00 and midnight, perhaps in small groups, chatting and potentially talking and shouting to other persons in the vicinity – would be removed given the amendment of the application by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee accepted that this same risk remained for earlier hours but the effect of any such noise would have arguably less adverse impact prior to 23:00 than after 23:00. The Sub-Committee also gave weight to no resident representations being received as part of the premises application. On balance the Sub-Committee judged that this licensing objective could be promoted by allowing the Licensable Activity to be conducted on the days and hours sought by the Applicant in its amended application. Prevention of Crime and Disorder The Sub-Committee gave significant weight to the lack of representation opposing the application from Gwent Police. In doing so, it accepted the Applicant’s submission that the police should be considered to be the experts on this particular licensing objective, and the lack of representation could be taken as showing that the premises was not located in an area that was an existing hot spot for crime and disorder. Notwithstanding, the Sub-Committee did not reach a view that the Responsible Authority’s representations in respect of this licensing objectives to be irrelevant. It seemed common sense that any disorder arising from the premises, such as a refusal of service objected to by the prospective customer at the Premises, during a late hour, is very likely to generate noise which bleeds across to the earlier discussed licensing objective. The Sub-Committee were persuaded, and in any event appeared to be common ground between the parties, that the Applicant is vastly experienced in successfully managing this licensable activity incorporated within its enterprise and has a series of systems in place to promote the licensing objectives. This was a significant factor in assessing whether this licensing objective would be promoted. On balance, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that this licensing objective would be adequately promoted under the amended application. Whilst the risk of disorder is always to a degree present, the Sub-Committee took the view that the risk of such increases during the later hours of the night or early hours of the morning. The terminable hour of 23:00 was sufficient to mitigate against such risk and as such adequately promotes this licensing objective. Planning consent The Sub-Committee were cognisant that the licensing and planning regimes run independently of each other. It was abundantly clear that the Applicant was aware of the current planning restriction on its hour of opening (07:00) is discordant with the licensable activity daily start time (06:00). The current planning approval did not factor in any significant way in the Sub-Committee’s ultimate decision. Any person aggrieved by this decision has 21 days from the date of written notification of the decision to appeal to the local Magistrates Court.