Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To determine any other items of business which the Chair decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

There was no declarations of interest.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and declared that the Sub-Committee was sitting to consider an application for a premises licence for The Paradise Shisha Bar, 15-19 Tower Street, King’s Lynn.  The Chair introduced the Sub-Committee, the Borough Council officers and the Legal Advisor and explained their roles.

The Responsible Authority, Applicant and Other persons all introduced themselves.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

At the request of the Chair, the Legal Advisor outlined the procedure which would be followed at the Hearing.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

At the request of the Chair, the Licensing Officer presented the report as included in the Agenda and highlighted the additional proposed conditions as agreed with the Applicant and Responsible Authorities, the use of the outside area after 10pm for non-licensable activity, and that there was a current licence in place for the same address for Lynn Smokehouse and Bar which had been considered by the Sub-Committee in April 2012 and had additional conditions.  A copy of the previous application was included in the Agenda.  It was noted that the existing licence covered the whole of the premises and this application was for part of the premises as highlighted in the plan included in the Agenda and displayed on the screen at the Hearing.

The Licensing Officer requested that the Sub-Committee consider the application and representations put forward at the Hearing and dispose of the matter by using one of the methods as set out in the report.

There were no questions to the Licensing Officer.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Applicant and his representative presented their case and explained that they were trying to bring a new offer and atmosphere to the town centre.  They explained that they were willing to work with the public, ensure that the area was kept safe and comply with whatever was required.  It was explained that door security would be used going forward and at the moment door security was being used as patrons were required to bring their own alcohol.

The Applicant and his representative explained that they had applied for the licence, as although the premises already had a licence, the licence holder did not want to exchange it, so they had applied for a new licence for part of the premises.

The Licensing Officer asked what the Applicant meant by complying with whatever was needed, and the Applicant explained that they had been working with the Council on noise levels etc.

The Licensing Officer referred to a previous conversation with the Applicant about moving to Norfolk Street and the Applicant stated that if there was no ability to play music at the current premises and create a relaxing atmosphere, they would look at other options.

The Licensing Officer referred to incidents when music had been played at the premises and complaints received.  The Applicant stated that this related to a Private Party and speakers were being tested.  The Licensing Officer stated that she was aware that tickets were available for this event and the Applicant stated that it was a Private Party.

Mr Pease, on behalf of the Responsible Authority referred to the ‘Russian Night’ held on 4^th May, which the Applicant had stated was a private party, but he was aware that a private party had been held on 11^th May as well and stated that each time the Applicant stated that this wouldn’t happen again, but it had.

The Applicant explained that only one party had been held and once a complaint had been received, they had stopped playing music.  The other event had background music only.  The Applicant also stated that he had worked with the Council on the volume levels and no complaints had been received since.

Mr Pease explained that he was aware of three occasions when there had been disruption; 4^th, 11^th and 17^th May and each time the Applicant had stated that it wouldn’t happen again.

The Applicant stated that the morning after the Russian Night he had realised that some windows had accidently been left open.

Mr Pease stated that the Applicant had provided different answers to the events held at the Hearing today compared to those as set out in the report.

Mr Sevha stated that he refused use of his licence to the Applicant.  The Chair explained that Mr Sevha would be provided the opportunity to make his case at the appropriate time in the Hearing.

Mrs Carnell asked the Applicant if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Mr Pease, on behalf of the Borough Council presented the Responsible Authorities case.  He explained that there had been three loud events held on the premises, with one being advertised on social media as a Russian Night.

He explained that officers from the Borough Council’s Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team had attended the premises on 11^th May and could hear loud music, likely at nuisance level, outside the area and recordings had been made.  The Applicant had apologised for this and stated it wouldn’t happen again, but on 17^th May loud music was being played at an intrusive level again.  Officers spoke to the Applicant again on 17^th May and the music was turned down.

Mr Pease stated that although the Applicant had given assurances that disruption would not happen again, he was concerned that this wouldn’t be followed through due to the three events recently held at the premises.

Mr Heval asked Mr Pease about a child on the premises.  Mr Pease explained that he had witnessed a child on the premises and the Applicant had stated that it was his son, who was there for a short period of time waiting for a lift home.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Mr Heval

Mr Heval presented his case and referred to the fire exits on the first floor of the premises, the difficulties in splitting the premises into two sections and that the back garden was the only area that should be used for Shisha.

Mr Heval stated that he had been threatened and blackmailed by the Applicant and had seen the Applicant sell alcohol without permission.

Mr Heval referred to a gas pipe in the garden, which he felt was unsafe if Shisha was being smoked outside and he had been so stressed about the Insurance coverage of the premises that he had been unable to sleep and had been to see a solicitor.  He also stated that the structure in the garden was unstable and he was worried that it could cause injury.

Mr Heval stated that there was inadequate ventilation at the premises.  There was air conditioning, but no air circulation upstairs and if the upstairs windows were open they acted like an amplifier for music.

Mr Heval stated that he would not allow the Applicant to use his DPS Licence and the Applicant did not have a Personal Licence.  He explained that the Applicant had not asked his permission to use the premises even though he owned half of the building.  He also stated that he was getting invoices from contractors and that the Applicant had no public liability insurance, no electric safety insurance, the building was unsuitable and that there had been children on the premises.

The Licensing Officer asked Mr Heval if his main concern was safety and fire issues and Mr Heval stated that he was unsure if the building was properly insured and there was no gas or electric certificate in place. 

The Licensing Officer referred to the civil matter relating to ownership of the building and Mr Heval stated that he had been threatened and blackmailed and had been working with a solicitor.  He stated that he had tried to report the crime to the Police, but did not have a crime number.  He stated that his Solicitor had advised him not to allow the Applicant use of his licence.

Councillor Parish asked Mr Heval what his original ambition for the premises was.  He stated that he wanted it to be a family restaurant.

Councillor Parish asked Mr Heval about the condition of the building.  Mr Heval referred to the structure in the garden and he felt that it was unstable.

Councillor Bhondi asked about the use of the upstairs for playing music.  Mr Heval stated that it was not appropriate as there was no ventilation and when windows were opened the noise leaked out.  There was no sound proofing at the premises.

Mr Freitas

Mr Freitas presented his case and stated that he couldn’t sleep when there was music playing at night and his main concern was public nuisance as set out in his representation which had been included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Licensing Officer summed up the case and reminded the Sub-Committee that they should consider all the information included in the Agenda and put forward at the Hearing today and dispose of the matter using one of the methods as set out in the report.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Mr Pease summed up the Responsible Authority’s case and stated that since the application had been made there had been several events at the premises which had caused public nuisance, despite repeated assurances from the Applicant that they wouldn’t happen again.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Applicant summed up their case and stated that they would work with the Police, have SIA accredited security on the door and there were lots of bars already in the area that did not have security on the door. 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Mr Heval summed up his case and stated that the Applicant had no regard to the Law and could not be trusted, the venue was unsuitable for music and he was not sure if there was a system in place to verify the age of patrons and that the structure in the garden should not be touching other properties.

The other interested parties had nothing further to add.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Legal Advisor advised that there were no outstanding matters.

The Chair explained that the Sub-Committee would retire to make their decision in private, accompanied by the Senior Democratic Services Officer for administrative purposes and the Legal Advisor for specific points of law and procedure.

All parties were then called back into the room and the decision of the Sub-Committee was read out.  A copy of the decision notice is attached.