Agenda item

The Public Protection Officer, Licensing introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that an application has been received from Mehmet Yilmaz, Operator of Jimmy’s Kebab mobile food van to vary the Street Trading Consent times for Jimmy’s Kebab, Pitch 24, Terrace Walk, Bath, from finishing at 03:00hrs to finishing at 03:30hrs every day (to trade 30 minutes later).

He stated that the times applied for are: 20:30hrs to 03:30hrs every day (to trade 30 minutes later. The start time is unaltered).

He informed the Sub-Committee that an objection had been received from The Abbey Hotel and that it is alleged that:

The Abbey Hotel already suffers disturbances coming from Jimmy’s Kebab and that guests staying at the Abbey Hotel will be further impacted by the additional 30 minutes trading time.

The applicant’s solicitor explained why the variation was being sought. He and the applicant were both asked questions by the Sub-Committee and both responded accordingly.

The solicitor on behalf of the objectors stated their case for why the application should be refused. He was asked questions by the Sub-Committee and responded accordingly.

The Chairman asked both parties to make their closing submissions.

Following this, he asked them if they felt they had given all the evidence necessary for their respective arguments.

Both parties agreed that they had.

Decision and Reasons

Members have had to determine an application to vary a Street Trading consent at Pitch 24, Terrace Walk, Bath, to increase the hours of operation by half an hour at the end of each day.  In determining the application, Members had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Council Policy and Human Rights Act 1998.

Angus McWilliams, solicitor, addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the applicant. He submitted that there is no evidence to support the fact that the noise and disturbance was originating from Jimmy’s Kebabs particularly as there are nightclubs and a taxi rank in the vicinity. He indicated to members that the extension as sought would allow an extra 30 minutes to prepare for closing, serve the last few customers and for his client to set himself up to close at the proper time, this would also allow his client to meet a demand. The applicant indicated that he had employed extra staff in order to serve customers quickly and manage noise.

Mr McWilliams submitted that the photographs provided by the objector’s solicitors were not time stamped and, in any event, this was not the proper forum to deal with an alleged breach of the street trading consent. On questioning it was accepted that the photographs were timed and dated as indicated, as the objector had brought the camera with him to prove this.  He also submitted that the fact the application had come before the Sub-Committee in July was irrelevant.

There was a written representation from The Abbey Hotel. It was submitted that the hotel already suffers disturbances coming from this pitch and guests staying at the hotel will be further impacted by the additional 30 minutes trading.

George Domleo, solicitor, addressed members on behalf of the Abbey Hotel. In his submissions he disputed that this is not the right forum for the photographs. He indicated that this shows Jimmy’s Kebabs are clearly trading beyond their permitted hours and the Hotel has no confidence that if the extension was granted, the pitch would actually close at 3:30am.

Mr Domleo indicated that during the 3-4 years that Jimmy’s Kebabs has been at the pitch there has been an increase in antisocial behaviour and whilst people might come from the Labyrinth and Second Bridge nightclubs, they go to Jimmy’s Kebabs which acts as a magnet. The Hotel has had to pay compensation or offer alternative rooms due to the disturbance caused by the pitch to the guests.

Members noted that additional information submitted by the objector’s solicitor had been shared with the applicant. This comprised a covering letter and two photographs which were said to show the pitch in use beyond the permitted hours on 8th and 9th October 2022. Members noted that this is not a review of the existing street trading consent nor is it to consider alleged breaches of the consent however, they can have regard to evidence that is relevant to the potential impact of the extension sought. Members noted that there was no dispute regarding the time and date of these photographs. They received an explanation from the applicant for why customers were at the pitch after 3am on these occasions.

Members were mindful that this application was to be considered on its own merits regardless of any application that came before it in July.

Members noted that there were no representations from consultees such as the Police, Environmental Protection or Highways Department.

In reaching a decision Members took account of the relevant representations and balanced the competing interests of the applicant and the objector.

Members noted that the principle of the pitch had already been established and this application concerns an increase in hours of operation from 0300 to 0330 daily.

Members are mindful that their Policy anticipates a street trading environment that is sensitive to the needs of residents alongside providing diversity and consumer choice, amongst other things.

Members had sympathy for Mr Yilmaz in relation to his commercial aspirations, however they were not relevant to this determination and found on the evidence that they had heard and read as indicated above, that there was likely to be an increase in nuisance and annoyance to residents of the Abbey Hotel that could not be mitigated by the standard or additional conditions. For that reason, they did not think that a shorter period of consent as a trial was appropriate either. Accordingly, they refused the application.