(a)

considered the content of the report from the Director of Public Health;

(b)

considered written representations and heard from the applicant and his legal representative as follows -

?

this was an application for the licence of a kiosk situated at Sherwell Arcade; there was a current licence for a mobile unit situated at the same location for the hours of 11pm to 5am, the same hours as this application;

?

professional and clean unit: currently trading with his mobile van, the kiosk would be more professional and provide a better experience for his customers with better facilities and better CCTV which could help the local community; he would gain more respect not from his customers but from other people when requesting people keep the noise down they would be more likely to listen to him from a kiosk rather than a van;

?

none of the Responsible Authorities had objected to this application; the applicant had engaged with the police and Environmental Health; they had given conditions which he had agreed to; the conditions went further than the licence currently held;

?

the applicant had an existing licence operating from 11pm and 5a;, the key issue for the Committee for this application was not whether the grant of a licence would undermine the licensing objectives, rather did the change from a van to a kiosk undermine them, they did not;

?

it was important to say that this application was for food and late night refreshments; the applicant would not sale alcohol or cigarettes; the Council’s Licensing Policy (page 13) stated late night refreshments was an integral part of the premises and helped to reduce alcohol related crime and anti-social behaviour, and that was what this business did, it prevented it;

?

the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder: the police had not objected; the applicant worked with the police, as he had good CCTV, if the unit was not there, there would be no CCTV in this area; from his location he could see outside of the Switch and Air clubs and the car park had a very good view and picked up a lot of footage unconnected to his van; the police regularly asked to view the CCTV; he kept good logs and provided a sample of detail lists of events he had witnessed; that showed this was a business which kept good records, if approached by the police he would be able to help;

?

the applicant paid to be part of the radio scheme with other businesses;

?

the new licence would have two members of staff at the kiosk at all times which would help to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour;

?

there would be better CCTV with a permanent kiosk which would be of benefit to the police and others; the permanent structure would likely discourage anti-social behaviour, when the applicant left that area and no one was around; the kiosk would have CCTV and continue to discourage anti-social behaviour;

?

the applicant was prepared to agree to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(a)

considered the content of the report from the Director of Public Health;

(b)

considered written representations and heard from the applicant and his legal representative as follows -

?

there were  many similarities in respect of having a kiosk outside the Roundabout pub as with having a kiosk in Tavistock Place (considered in the other application); there was already a licence in place for a van for the same hours; it was a question of looking at the change from van and kiosk -

?

there was a practical difference from the other application as the applicant had not been trading since taking over the licence in 2019, as he had wanted to concentrate on the other site; the applicant now wanted to provide a professional kiosk, with CCTV providing a good facility and good experience for customers and helping to achieve the licensing objectives;

?

objections had concerned litter and noise, these could not be attributed to the applicant, as he had not been trading; if the application was not successful, the applicant could continue trading under the existing licence; this application provided an opportunity to impose stricter conditions;

?

the applicant was engaged with the police and Environmental Health and was happy to agree to their conditions, therefore stricter conditions would be in place; that meant whereas currently where there was no CCTV there would be CCTV on the unit and where no physical presence there would be two members of staff running the unit; at the moment there was no cleaning of the litter in the area and therefore the licensing objectives would be better served by him being there; he had the ability to trade now, what was different with mobile van was the kiosk which was safer, cleaner, better presence and better facilities including CCTV;

?

regarding objections for the need for this establishment as already others in the area; it was not a licensing issue, as the applicant could trade under his existing licence;

?

the fact that there were other late night venues in the area; that litter and other issues that had been reported were  attributable to other places and not to the applicant, as he had not traded there yet;

?

complaints of litter demonstrated litter was attributable to other places, ie reference to plastic bags, bottles and other rubbish; this could not be attributable to these premises, as the applicant was not trading at the moment; some of the objections referred to polystyrene burger cases, a number of other establishments in the area used similar containers ie Switch, Jacks and possibly Mr Wok;

?

Plymouth College of Art provided an objection which raised a number of issues, the Committee was asked to disregard these, as not related to the licensing objectives; similarly the representation regarding the use of the word Uni in Uniburgerman and how this could be somehow linked with the College or University; Uni was a generic name and a Google search had revealed a Uni burger in Berlin; this was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.