Venue: The Norfolk Room, Elizabeth House, Dereham
Contact: Democratic Services Tel: 01362 656870
To receive apologies for absence.
Declaration of Interests
The duties to register, disclose and not to participate for the entire consideration of the matter, in respect of any matter in which a Member has a disclosable pecuniary interest are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011. Members are also required to withdraw from the meeting room as stated in the Standing Orders of this Council.
The Chairman explained that she had known of Mr Croxen some 16 years ago.
The Chairman introduced the Panel and explained the procedures.
Report of the Executive Manager People & Protection, Phil Adams.
The Hearing was conducted in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Agenda.
The following persons were in attendance:
Mr Carlos Riberio – Applicant
Mr Manuel Rocha – Applicant’s Representative
Mr Carlos Santos – Witness
Mrs Gislaine Dinis - Witness
Mr Mark Croxen
Ms Alison Glover
Mr Chris Brooks – Norfolk Constabulary Licensing Team
PC Richard Spinks – Norfolk Constabulary
Mr Graham Parfitt – Operational Partnership Team
Ms Angela Masterson – Environmental Health
Having considered all of the oral and written evidence submitted and having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003 and its regulations, the National Guidance, and the Council’s Licensing Policy, the application for variation of the premises licence for Pedro Cafe, 51 Castle Street, Thetford be refused.
Reasons for Decision
The Panel took into account the concerns raised by the statutory consultees namely Norfolk Constabulary, the Environmental Health Team, the Operational Partnership Team and the interested parties. They have also considered the reasons behind the application and the fact that the café is used by the local community.
The Panel was concerned by the incidents of anti-social behaviour that had occurred on a number of occasions at the premises, particularly after 9.00pm in the evening. It was of concern that additional hours would increase the potential of causing public nuisance.
The Panel were concerned that the premises licence holder and the designated premises supervisor were not taking their responsibilities as they should.
The Panel did not consider that the licensing objectives for the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance were being met.
The Panel further noted that the police had commented that if the applicant was failing to adhere to the current licensing conditions, the Police were concerned the applicant would fail to adhere to these after any extension of licensing hours.