Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions
Contact: Sophie Butcher
Local Code of Conduct - Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda. Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and that they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.
If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.
Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.
No disclosures of interest were declared.
To consider an application for a new premises licence - Pizzaman, Union House, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey PDF 468 KB
In arriving at its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the relevant representations submitted verbally and in writing. The Sub-Committee was also made aware that the following sections of the Licensing Policy were relevant:
· Section 4: (Fundamental Principles)
· Section 11: (Licensing Hours)
· Section 12.1: (Prevention of Crime & Disorder)
· Section 12.2: (Public Safety)
· Section 12.3: 12.3.1 – 12.3.6 (Prevention of Public Nuisance)
· Section 12.4: (Protection of Children from Harm)
· Section 17: (Licence Conditions)
The following sections of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 were also relevant:
· Paragraph 1.16 – Licence conditions – general principles
· Paragraph 2.17 – Each application on its own merits
· Paragraphs 2.1-2.6 – Crime and Disorder
· Paragraphs 2.7 – 2.14 – Public Safety
· Paragraphs 2.15-2.21 – Public nuisance
· Paragraphs 2.22-2.32 – Protection of children from harm
· Paragraphs 9.31-9.41 – Hearings
· Paragraphs 9.42 – 9.44 – Determining actions that are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives
· Paragraphs 10.1-10.66 – Conditions
The Sub-Committee received a report from the Licensing Officer, Mark Adams. The application was for a new premises licence to allow the provision of late-night refreshment from 23:00-05:00 hours. The applicant had been trading for a number of years in Union House. No representations had been received from responsible authorities in relation to the consultation. However, two representations had been received, one from the University of Surrey and the second was from the Student Union for the University of Surrey on the grounds of public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the application was only for late night refreshment, not alcohol.
The Chairman invited the applicant, Mr Khosrabi, to make his submission in support of his application, who stated the following:
· He had been trading as Pizzaman for 20 years. In 2005, he received a letter from the Student Union stating that he no longer had a licence to trade under. The Student Union then agreed that he could trade under the licence they had in place. In October 2021, he received a request to vacate the premises which he legally challenged. A police officer attended his shop and told him his trading licence had been removed which forced him to voluntarily stop working.
· Pizzaman was permitted to be open for two hours after the nightclub closes, which was located above the Pizzaman premises. It was clarified that the nightclub was not open for seven days a week.
· The Licensing Officer, Mark Adams confirmed that there was no requirement for a licence holder to operate up to the hours applied for but had to of course operate within those hours.
The Legal Advisor, Delwyn Jones asked if it was relevant for the applicant to refer to the issues specifically raised in the representations received, such as, CCTV and Security. The Sub-Committee agreed and asked the applicant about those matters.
The applicant confirmed that he had not employed Security over the past 20 years and had never been asked to employ security ... view the full minutes text for item 2.