(a)

considered the report from the Director for Community Services;

(b)

heard from the applicant’s legal representative;

(c)

heard from the applicant’s witnesses;

(d)

considered the representation made by a representative of Devon and Cornwall Police;

(e)

considered the representation made by a representative of Environmental Health;

(f)

considered the representations made by interested parties;

(g)

heard from the applicant’s legal representative that:

(i)

the outlet was to be fully staffed at all times normally by three persons all fully trained and holding Health and Hygiene certificates;

(ii)

signage would be provided reminding customers to dispose of any refuse in bins provided and not to litter;

(iii)

staff at regular intervals would clear any debris from the area and would clean the site and the immediate area at the close of business.  All debris and refuse would be removed for proper disposal;

(iv)

this additional outlet would reduce any queuing and disperse customers more quickly thus reducing the members congregating and any problems of disorder or nuisance in the area;

(v)

it was not correct to conclude that all customers would have been consuming alcohol.  The facility was aimed at late night workers, eg. taxi drivers and passing shift workers as well as those visiting entertainment establishments nearby;

(vi)

the position of the outlet was clearly discernable as adjacent to another similar unit but was nearer the main road;

(vii)

the generator used at the outlet was a new Honda, the quietest on the market, with a maximum decibel level of 57db;

(viii)

cooking smells were minimal. There were no complaints, so far as the applicant was aware, relating to the neighbouring outlet and so there was not anticipated to be any from this outlet. There were no residential properties in close proximity and any fumes there may be would be quickly dissipated by being close to the main road;

(ix)

there were SIA security staff very close by and there was good CCTV coverage of the area;

(x)

the additional facility would have no negative impact on any of the licensing objectives.  The applicant was not aware of any children being in the area during the late hours to be in any way adversely affected by a food outlet;

(xi)

no problems or complaints have been experienced whilst operating within the existing hours;

(h)

considered representations under the licensing objectives as follows;

(1)

Prevention of Public Nuisance –

there may be an increase in noise levels from patrons using the mobile food vehicle that may disturb nearby residents, particularly during the hours of midnight to 05.00am;

this was considered to be relevant;

there may be an increase in existing noise levels due to the operation of equipment associated with the mobile food vehicle, such as the generator, causing disturbance to nearby residents;

this was considered to be relevant;

there may be an increase in levels of litter, vomit and spilled food waste from patrons in the vicinity;

this was considered to be relevant;

there may be an increase in levels of grease and by-products of cooking in the immediate vicinity;

this was considered to be relevant;

there may be odournuisance from cooking smells affecting residential properties in the immediate vicinity; 

this was considered to be relevant;

there was potential of a large gathering, where people who would have been drinking and not drinking to be loud and boisterous taking into account residents who have informed the ward councillor of loud levels;

this was considered to be relevant;

Environmental Health provided details of Plymouth Customer Data Integration Project, Upload of survey data – initial findings which was produced in October 2010. This was a place survey all local authorities were required to carry out and the survey was sent out to every household in Mutley and Greenbank approximately 8000 households of which 922 responses were received. The information on the place survey indicated that the residents were unhappy about antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood. The biggest issue to residents was the rubbish and litter lying around;

(2)

Prevention of Crime and Disorder –

people who attend the van were likely to have been already drinking and were likely to consume their purchase in the vicinity of the premise in a public place and this was likely to impact on levels of violence and disorder reported;

this was considered to be relevant;

as there was already a late night refreshment outlet in a fairly confined area it was inevitable there would be intermingling of customers for both vendors and the strong possibility of people voicing opinions regarding service, quality etc. that will inevitably culminate in incidences of violence and disorder;

this was considered to be relevant;

there was the potential for the premise to become a crime magnet which would in effect have an impact on crime and an increase in street robberies;

this was not considered to be relevant as members did not believe they had heard any evidence of this;

the evidence presented by the Police showed an increase in crime levels with the cumulative impact area. They said the evidence showed that the majority of crime in this area occurred between 22:00hrs and 06:00hrs. The peak time for all crime was between 02:00hrs and 04:00hrs Friday, Saturday and Sunday;

the Police provided details of the crime trends in the cumulative impact area in which the premises was located;

(3)

Protection of Children from Harm –

there was no representation;

(4)

Public Safety –

there was going to be a reduction in police officers and that in the event of a major situation police may not be able to respond quick enough and that would compromise public safety;

this was not considered to be relevant as the operation of the Police was not a relevant consideration for this committee;

(5)

Other representations –

none.