Agenda, decisions and minutes

None were received.

None were received.

None were received.

The Chairman explained the procedure for hearing and determining the application and detailed the order in which speakers would be able to address the Panel.

That the variation of a Premises Licence would not be granted to the applicant as this would undermine the environmental impact and Licensing Objectives, namely the prevention of Crime & Disorder and Public Nuisance.

The Panel considered the report of the Director of Environment which was presented by the Licensing Officer for determination of an application to vary a Premises Licence to extend the terminal hour for the sale of late night refreshment at the Turkish Delight, 10a Wrexham Street, Mold.

He confirmed that the application had been advertised in the correct manner and said that the applicant believed that no further steps were needed to promote the Licensing Objectives.  Appended to the report were written representations against the application from three local residents and two Local Members.

4.1       Representations by the Applicant

On behalf of the applicant, Ms. Clark sought permission to allow the previous owner, Mr. Jamil, to speak as an independent witness.  The Chairman advised that although it was normal practice to allow only one representative to speak, he would allow all those present the opportunity to put forward their cases.

Ms. Clark explained that Mr. Jamil was the previous owner of the premises from 2008 and that no problems had occurred during that time whilst trading as a take-away fast food outlet under the current hours.  She pointed out that the applicant wished to extend the current hours to an additional half an hour during the week and one hour on weekends and that if granted, the premises would close earlier than other outlets in close proximity and could not therefore add to any existing impact.  She went on to say that the Gold Cape (Wetherspoons), the Red Lion and ex-servicemen’s club were all licensed to remain open until later times, the latter of which was located closer to the home of one of the objectors than the premises itself.

In response to the written objections, she noted that these were not directly related to the premises itself as they were generally anti-social behaviour issues which had taken place in the area and disturbances at a nearby fast-food outlet.  In summary, she felt that there was no evidence to support the objections against the application, which she felt were merely presumptions, and that this was further highlighted by the fact that no objections had been made by the Police or from Noise Pollution officers.

The Chairman sought clarification on a comment made by Ms. Clark.  Mr. Jamil referred to a brief conversation with Councillor Bithell a few years earlier in which Councillor Bithell had expressed concern about any effect of extended trading hours on his constituents who lived in the area.

4.2       Representations by Interested Parties

Miss Farrer said that she was also speaking on behalf of another local resident Mr. Davison who had made a written objection, and shared a copy of a letter to this effect.  Whilst stressing that there were no issues against the applicant, she said that this was about the principle of the premises’ opening hours.  In response to representations made by Ms. Clark, Miss Farrer said that the evidence against the application was based on residents’ concerns arising from disturbances by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

There was one member of the press in attendance.