Decision Notice: Application for a Variation to a Premises Licence at Dorking Kebab, 195 High Street, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 2HQ

Decision Notice: Application for a Variation to a Premises Licence at Dorking Kebab, 195 High Street, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 2HQ This notice confirms the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee made at a meeting on Friday 20th December 2019 at 10am Background 1. Dorking Kebab is currently licenced under MVDC 165/7. Mr Salam Sewadin (Applicant) submitted an application for a variation of a premises licence (Application). 2. The Applicant wishes to extend his opening hours to provide late night refreshment until 02.00hrs on Fridays and Saturdays. Currently the Applicant is licenced to provide late night refreshment at the premises until midnight every night of the week and provide home deliveries until 02.00hrs. 3. As relevant representations in respect of the Application were submitted, a hearing was arranged to take place on 20th December 2019 at 10.00am in the Council’s Chamber to enable the Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee, consisting of Councillor Tim Loretto, Councillor Alan Reilly and Councillor Elizabeth Daly to determine the Application. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Alan Reilly. Attendance and Participation 4. The hearing was attended by: On behalf of the Mr Salam Sewadin Applicant / Licence Holder Applicant Winston Brown Applicant’s Solicitor On behalf of the Ms Pat Booker Surrey Police Licensing Responsible Officer Authorities Rob Ivens Environmental Health Interested Parties David Draper Councillor 5. The Licensing Sub-Committee is satisfied that notice of the hearing was served on all relevant parties, and that all those entitled to speak at the hearing had an opportunity to do so. Summary of Discussion Applicant 6. The Applicant’s solicitor, Mr Brown, touched upon the Interested Party’s representation that the variation proposed would increase the risk of noise nuisance to local residents. Mr Brown said these concerns were vague and not targeted at the operator. Mr Brown, with the permission of the Sub – Committee, showed photos of the premises situated along a commercial parade of shops on the High Street in Dorking and stated that there are no residential flats in the vicinity. Therefore the risk of noise nuisance posed by the variation to residents is minimal. 7. Mr Brown added that there is a public house a couple of hundred yards away that is open until 1am and therefore the suggestion that the opening of this premises will cause noise nuisance in a previously quiet area is flawed. 8. In addressing representations made by Environmental Health, Mr Brown added that the applicant cannot control the movement of persons but suggested a congregation policy could be offered as a condition to help crowd control should that be necessary. It was clarified by the Licensing Officer that this wasn’t a representation from the Licensing Department but rather Environmental Health. 9. In addressing the representations made by the Police, the Police say the conditions on the licence are working, this suggests they don’t have any problems with this premises and that it is well run. The Applicant doesn’t understand and has no knowledge of the reference in the Police’s representation of racially aggravated incident. He added the Applicant wasn’t charged with any offence. Mr Brown added that the Police in their representation have proposed conditions which the Applicant is happy to adopt. 10. There is mention in the representation from the Police that the Applicant breaches his licence conditions by delivering food to people waiting in vehicles outside his shop. Mr Brown said the Applicant genuinely thought this was permitted by his licence. However, he now is aware that isn’t authorised and will duly comply. Mr Brown added that everyone is entitled to a second chance and this is third time the Applicant has come in for a variation and this application should be looked upon on its own merits. 11. In responding to the comments made by Mr Brown, the representative from Environmental Health believed there are residential properties across the road from the premises and commented that offices can easily be converted into offices through the planning process. Councillor Draper supported this assertion that there are residential properties nearby. 12. Councillor Loretto wished to clarify with the Mr Brown that his written submissions stated the Applicant was applying for late night refreshment until 01.30hrs when the Applicant was requesting opening until 02.00hrs in his Application. Mr Brown confirmed the Applicant was asking for late night refreshment until 02.00hrs Friday and Saturdays. Councillor Loretto also commented that it is clear from the Police’s representation that they’re not happy about this application so weight does need to be placed on what they say. 13. Upon questioning from Councillor Elizabeth Daly, the Applicant said that he hadn’t researched door staff in any detail but that he had passed the SIA qualifications himself. Councillor Daly asked how the Sub – Committee could be assured that there would be no further licence condition breaches. Mr Brown replied that the committee could make it a condition for the Applicant to attend training. He also added that the Applicant wants a chance to prove he can run the business and if there is any problems then the authorities need to let him know. Responsible Authority – Surrey Police 14. Mr Ivens spoke first on behalf of Mole Valley District Council’s Environmental Health Department. Mr Iven’s expanded on his previously submitted written representation and explained that opening until 02.00hrs will create noise and encourage late night movement of customers in this area which will not be acceptable. There is no evidence that public houses that are licenced to 01.00hrs are actually open until that time. The Applicant has made multiple applications which have been refused as unacceptable and he comes back with a further application asking for an even later opening time. The Applicant replied that he wants operating times in line with other licensed premises area. His solicitor confirmed that the Applicant is willing to amend his Application and close at 01.00hrs. 15. Ms Booker was present on behalf of the Police. The Police’s written submissions raised the following maters : a. This is the fifth application to extend the operating hours since the Applicant took over the premises in November 2011. Ownership briefly changed to the Applicants brother in law in July 2018 in conjunction with the fourth application to extend the licensing hours. That application was refused by the Licensing Sub – Committee and ownership reverted back to the Applicant who 8 months later has submitted a further application to extend his operating hours to 02.00hrs Saturday and Sunday mornings. b. The premises has previously been a focal point for criminal damage, anti-social behaviour, public order and violence. Surrey Police cautioned the Applicant for an incident that occurred between the Applicant and one of his employees. A further incident occurred in November 2019 where two of the Applicant’s delivery drivers were involved in a racially aggravated fight outside the premises. Several people, including the Applicant were seen by the town’s CCTV cameras intervening in the incident. The Police have concerns how the Applicant might react to customers who are rude or confrontational. c. There have been numerous licence breaches since 2011 whereby the premises has failed to cease trading at the end of its operating hours. There is evidence of this from the CCTV cameras in the High Street. The Applicant has been seen to deliver food to people who knock on the premises door after closing and those that who are either waiting in a vehicle of sitting on a bench outside the Post Office. These actions cannot be classed as providing a Home Delivery service. The Applicant has been warned both verbally and formally in writing about these breaches by both the Surrey Police Licensing Enforcement Officer and MVDC’s Senior Licensing Officer but he continues to breach the conditions of his licence. Surrey Police have little confidence the Applicant will close at 02.00hrs d. The Police strongly believe that the conditions imposed by the Licensing Sub – Committee at two earlier review hearings in 2011 and 2018 are the main reasons why there has been a decline in incidents of criminal damage, anti- social behaviour and violence reported to the police and law and order has been maintained at this location during the intervening years. e. The location of the premises is such that trading to 02.00 hours, particularly without SIA registered door staff being present, will create an environment that is likely to caused public nuisance in the area late at night and in the early morning. The Police have concerns that the increased opening hours will encourage alcohol fuelled people to congregate around the premises thereby increasing the risk that this area will become a flashpoint for disorder and anti- social behaviour. The premises is located where the through road narrows and crowd congregation could cause danger to the public and passing vehicles. Noise levels from patrons leaving the premises will continuity to at least 02.00hrs which will disturb local residents which could lead to complaints and possible confrontations. f. If the Sub–Committee are minded to grant the variation applied for then the Police have recommended various should be applied to the licence. 16. Upon questioning, Ms Booker was unable to confirm whether the Applicant received a caution this year as she was unable to log on to the internet during the hearing. However she said that her written representation was prepared using information contained on the Police database and she believes the information to be true and accurate. Ms Booker said that due to the way incidents are recorded with the Police she can’t say with any accuracy where incidents originate from.

Load more