(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 a licensing issue;

?

there was a suggestion that the kiosk would restrict access to the college; this was not the case; looking at the plan there was enough space for access and the fire service had not provided any objections for the siting of the kiosk;

?

references to vandalism, anti-social behaviour and defecating around the area; not linked, as the applicant was not trading; the kiosk would provide a presence which was not there at the moment, as he was not trading;

?

rodents again that would be helped by the kiosk, as there would be bins and litter picking;

?

representations by the Roundabout pub and Caffeine Club being competition to their business was not a relevant consideration; the Caffeine Club and Roundabout pub both sold alcohol and it was likely that people would leave both premises, often drunk and causing an issue; there was no link that the sale of burgers would add to this;

?

an opportunity for the Committee to apply stricter conditions to the licence and if not granted there was still a licence in place; the applicant was very willing to agree to the stricter conditions and engage with the local community and the opportunity for the application to improve the situation in the area;

?

the applicant had agreed with the police, Environmental Health and the fire authorities; he was agreeing to trade under much stricter conditions to his detriment, as he wanted to provide a better business to his customers; he was a responsible business owner and cared about anti-social behaviour; suggestions about signs looking tacky were a planning issue and not a licensing one;

(c)

representations from Responsible Authorities, as follows -

?

Devon and Cornwall Police: no representations were made, as agreed conditions with the applicant (refer to appendix 6 of the report);

?

Environmental Health: no representations were made, as agreed with the applicant (refer to appendix 7 of the report);

(d)

representations from Other Interested Parties: considered written representations and heard from other interested parties, as follows -

?

from representative of Plymouth College of Art -

?

the drawing showed the unit would be placed outside the main entrance to the college; the stand where the van intended to be was by the college entrance to the refectory decking area and to the right, close in proximity with a brick wall which was used as a marketing wall to display promotional literature from time to time;

?

also past the main entrance and pass the wall to the left, was a paved area with sitting and further around to the right a grass area with slabbed concrete seating; this area had attracted attention where people had bought food and consumed it there; this objection was not just for this business but was also historical;

?

the college held a lot of events and people visiting it would have to pass by the burger van; this would have an effect on its marketing; there was a connection to the Uni with the same name of the van;

?

the issue was the pure location of the burger van directly outside the main entrance of college; student recruitment was competitive, campus tours pass the van; whether operating or not it could deter potential students;

?

permanent, fixed and front and centre stage impact the college and would affect it from enjoying the outside area those were significant issues;

?

the college, cleaned its litter and it continued to do so; no justification that the unit’s presence would help to clear up the litter; the college had its own CCTV clearly for its purposes and there would be an impact on access for dropping people off to get by the kiosk, or dropping off students with accessibility issues;

?

from Ward Councillor -

?

discussed the previous application at some length and understood the van had not been trading; were aware of the issues that one van brought and to put another permanent unit at this site only highlighted the issues once again;

?

the siting of the kiosk outside food venues, Roundabout pub and Caffeine Club; he used the Caffeine Club and had eaten there, he did not go there to get drunk; it was a harsh accusation to make against their customers;

?

North Hill was covered by a cumulative policy;

?

even though there was an existing licence for 11pm to 5am, he raised all the same issues regarding a permanent structure, as he did for the other application made by this applicant; this site would cause further issues; no seating was provided so people would congregate and eat in the College of Art’s grounds, discard litter and then walk away;

?

saying the kiosk would provide better CCTV was lame; if the applicant had done his homework, outside of the College of Art was a big mast with a camera on it; he could not see how CCTV on the kiosk would be better;

?

if the licence was already in place there was no need for a permanent structure; there was the potential to take food to the wall by The Box, eat it there and discard litter; this would turn that area into a disaster zone, if granted;

?

the joint local plan, referred to the Council’s own policy, Plymouth as a healthy city to enjoy an outstanding way of life, a healthier life; this was a health option;

?

a permanent structure would increase the number of people and footfall that were not there now when starting trading; at that point the police would have concerns;

?

which toilets would they use as a long walk to Air;

?

there would be the same potential problems with crime and disorder, public safety and litter that had already been raised in connection with the other application today; this was a financial decision to have two burger sites in this area; there was no care about the residents in the area;

?

there was anti-social behaviour in the area and the North Hill Cumulative Policy needed to be looked at; the Committee should look at the impact of the structure for this area that had been changed due to The Box and the College of Art and the people they bring into the city;

?

the College of Art’s marketing team would be affected by a permanent structure; when displaying signage ‘Uniburgerman’ as it would look totally tacky when there was a multi award winning attraction and the church nearby; granting this would be a setback for the city and nothing to enhance the area of a forward thinking city;

(e)

heard the following responses to questions -

?

with regard to the use of toilet facilities, the applicant did not have anything in place yet and could not set up a toilet on site; possibly made arrangement with the Roundabout pub or Caffeine Club, or other places around;

?

the kiosk would not be placed on land owned by the College of Art;

?

the applicant said he would be willing to pick up litter in the College seating area;

?

the siting of the permanent structure and whether it prevented access to the College would be a planning matter and not one in connection with the licensing objectives;

?

the licence being applied for only related to the hours of 11pm and 5am and the operation of the unit during the day was not a legal issue for the licensing objectives;

?

the point made that granting the licence sets a precedent was not a licensing issue but a planning and amenity issue;

?

the applicant would be willing to meet with the College of Art to look at how impact could be minimised.

(1)

suitable permanent provision of toilet facilities for staff to be arranged;

(2)

this licence would not come into force until such time as these provisions were in place and agreed with the Council’s Licensing Officer as being adequate;

(3)

any future changes to the arranged toilet facilities also being agreed with the Council’s licensing officer.