Content

The decision of the Committee is to grant the
application in all respects and subject to the schedule of
conditions set out in the document entitled “Proposed
conditions v.3 15.09.25 BDW”.
 
The Committee in reaching its decision has
taken into account:
 
· 
The evidence before it both written and oral
 
· 
The relevant parts of the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy especially paragraphs 4.7.1.A - C, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 5.1.1 - 5,
6.1.1 - 3, 6.2.1 – 2, 6.3, 6.4.1 – 5, 6.4.7 – 10,
6.16.1 – 4, 7.3.1 - 2, 7.3.4, 7.4.3, 7.12.1 – 3, 7.12.5
– 7, 7.14.1 - 4
 
· 
The relevant parts of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State
in particular paragraphs 1.12, 1.16, 1.17, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5,
2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26,
14.28, 14.40 and 14.44
 
 
Committee’s reasoning and findings
are:
 
Applicant submissions
 
On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Williams
explained that the applications aimed to equalise trading hours
across both stores, potentially allowing 24/7 operation. He
acknowledged that both premises are takeaways within the City
Centre Special Stress Area and therefore subject to Special Policy
2 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. Mr Williams
accepted that the Applicant must demonstrate exceptionality and
show that the applications would not contribute to the negative
cumulative impact on licensing objectives to justify a departure
from Special Policy 2. He noted that the representations received
primarily related to Special Policy 2, with no specific issues
identified at either premises.
 
Mr Williams outlined the current late-night
refreshment hours: Neville Street operates Monday to Saturday until
4:30am, while Grainger Street operates Wednesday to Saturday until
4am and Sunday until midnight. The applications seek to extend both
premises to 5am daily, representing an additional 9 hours per week
at Neville Street and 21 hours per week at Grainger Street.
 
He highlighted that legislation only regulates
the sale of hot food between 11pm and 5am, meaning both premises
could otherwise open 24/7 for cold food without regulation. Mr
Williams emphasised the Applicant’s transparency and the fact
that the proposed operating schedule and conditions (version 3)
exceed what he suggests would ordinarily be required or expected.
These include staff wearing body-worn cameras and a high-standard
panic alarm system. While such measures may be expected from a
responsible, national operator, Mr Williams argued they should
still be credited as exceptional. He noted Greggs’ national
reputation and commitment to transparency, aligning with the
Council’s policy for greater scrutiny of licensed premises.
The Applicant, he submitted, understands and supports the
policy’s aims, and the proposed conditions address the
reasons behind cumulative impact policies.
 
Addressing representations, Mr Williams
acknowledged the challenges faced by the Police in the night-time
economy and stressed that the Applicant does not wish to exacerbate
these issues. He argued that the applications are intended to
support, not hinder, Police efforts. There was no evidence of
wrongdoing by the Applicant, and crime schedules provided by
Sergeant Cottiss showed that most incidents occurred outside
late-night refreshment hours and were often crimes against staff.
Mr Williams contended this demonstrates staff are absorbing the
impact, not causing it, and that Greggs has cooperated with Police
by providing CCTV and bodycam footage. He cautioned against
deterring licence holders from reporting crimes for fear of
repercussions.
 
Regarding evidence from Sergeant Yare, Mr
Williams noted that the highlighted issues occurred on nights when
the Applicant already operates beyond standard hours. He argued
that extending hours would aid patron dispersal and improve the
situation, and pointed out that other nearby premises (e.g.,
McDonald’s and Taco Bell) already have licences until 5am. No
specific evidence was provided to show that extending hours to 5am
would cause additional problems.
 
Mr Williams confirmed that each premises would
have at least three staff members, including a manager, during
licensable hours, with contingency for additional management if
needed. All incidents are recorded digitally via an app, supporting
both licensing objectives and staff welfare. The panic alarm system
is of the highest specification and operates 24/7, with access to
CCTV. Staff also use body-worn cameras and SIA door staff are
present before licensable hours begin. These measures, now to be
formalised as licence conditions, serve as deterrents and may help
address cumulative impact issues. Mr Williams submitted that these
steps set a new standard for applicants seeking similar hours and
demonstrate the exceptional nature of these applications.
 
Representations
 
Licensing Authority
 
Mr Bryce, representing the Licensing
Authority, presented the rationale behind the designation of
cumulative impact areas within the city, referencing the datasets
that underpin Special Policy 2. He confirmed that the premises in
question meet the Policy’s definition of a takeaway, and due
to their location, Special Policy 2 is applicable. This formed the
basis of his representation.
 
Since submitting his initial representation,
Mr Bryce acknowledged that the Applicant had provided a revised
schedule of conditions (version 3), which he agreed represented an
improvement over the existing late-night refreshment licences. He
noted that the Applicant is a reputable and well-established
operator, both locally and nationally.
 
Mr Bryce explained that under the current
framework, takeaway premises are expected to cease operations by
1:00am. He observed that both premises currently operate beyond
this terminal hour. Accordingly, he recognised that the Applicant
was not seeking to establish new operations from a zero baseline,
but rather to continue a proven model of late-night refreshment
service, particularly on peak nights within the nighttime
economy—namely, Fridays and Saturdays.
 
On the matter of exceptionality, Mr Bryce
referred to his most recent correspondence dated 12th September
2025, which was included in the agenda papers. He reiterated that
each application had been assessed on its individual merits. In his
view, the revised conditions would enhance the existing licences
and ensure they do not contribute further to the cumulative impact
already experienced in the area.
 
However, Mr Bryce concluded that
exceptionality would only be demonstrated if the variation of hours
were restricted to a terminal hour of 4:30am across all days. This,
he argued, aligns with the Applicant’s existing operational
model, which has already proven successful during the busiest
periods of the nighttime economy.
 
Police
 
Ms Hebb, representing Northumbria Police,
confirmed that the Police had previously indicated a willingness to
withdraw their representation, provided the additional trading
hours were limited to a terminal hour of 1am, with no extension to
the existing hours for licensable activities. However, earlier
discussions with the Applicant’s representative had failed to
reach a compromise. As a result, the Police maintained their
representation, citing the premises’ locations within the
Special Stress Area and the application of Special Policy 2.
 
Ms Hebb referred the Committee to the
Statement of Licensing Policy, specifically:
 
Paragraph 7.12.7, outlining what is not
considered exceptional;
Paragraphs 7.14.2 and 7.14.4, which address
the cumulative impact of incremental increases in licensed premises
within such areas.
She emphasised the purpose of the
Policy’s framework of hours: to manage and limit the
proliferation of late-night venues.
 
Regarding the schedule of incidents at both
premises over the past 12 months, Ms Hebb acknowledged that many
occurred outside the hours of late-night refreshment. However, she
focused on those that did fall within those hours, highlighting
incidents involving sexual offences, violence, and public
disorder—occurring across various weekdays, including Mondays
to Wednesdays. She described takeaway venues as common flashpoints
for disorder.
 
While Ms Hebb accepted that Greggs does not
have the worst incident record in the city centre and has not been
subject to any review proceedings, she noted that some incidents
involved violence, including assaults on door staff. She argued
that a higher concentration of licensed premises increases the
likelihood of crime and disorder—precisely what the Special
Policy seeks to mitigate.
 
She also referred to statements from CV
Cassidy, Sergeant Cottis, and Sergeant Yare, the latter of whom
gave oral evidence. Sergeant Yare expressed concern that Greggs
could become a focal point for groups due to its affordability,
potentially attracting more patrons than other late-night
establishments. He argued that granting the applications would
delay the dispersal of patrons from the night-time economy, a
period associated with heightened risk of violent and public order
offences. While he acknowledged that dispersal issues are more
acute on Fridays and Saturdays, he stressed that “there is no
quiet night” in the city centre.
 
Sergeant Yare agreed that some of the
Applicant’s proposed conditions could deter certain
behaviours, but not all. He also noted that extending trading hours
would require additional Police resources, stating that longer
opening hours logically correlate with increased incidents. He
further highlighted ongoing challenges in managing the street
community, despite existing enforcement powers.
 
Public Health
 
Ms Dargue, representing Public Health,
confirmed that their representation pertained solely to the
Grainger Street premises. She explained that the representation had
previously been withdrawn when it appeared the Applicant would
accept a 1am terminal hour on the additional days requested, with
no extension to existing permitted hours. However, as no agreement
was reached, Public Health’s original representation was
reinstated.
 
Ms Dargue reiterated that the representation
was primarily based on the proposal being contrary to the Statement
of Licensing Policy’s framework of hours for takeaways, as
well as Special Policy 2. She also raised concerns regarding the
high density of fast-food outlets and the associated links to
rising obesity levels in Newcastle.
 
Ward Councillor
 
Councillor Jane Byrne was unable to attend
today’s hearings due to work commitments. Nevertheless, her
written representation and supplementary email were included in the
agenda papers, which Committee reviewed carefully. Her submissions
focused on the applications being outside the Policy’s
permitted hours and lacking measures to promote the licensing
objectives.
 
DECISION
 
Having reviewed all oral submissions, written
evidence, and representations, Committee resolves to grant both
applications as requested by the Applicant. This includes approval
of the proposed amendments to the internal layout plans, which were
unopposed.
 
In reaching its decision, Committee first
considered whether the Applicant met the requirements of Special
Policy 2. Regarding exceptionality, Committee noted that simply
complying with an existing licence does not amount to exceptional
circumstances. However, the Applicant is a nationally recognised,
reputable, and established operator who, as part of these
applications, proposed a comprehensive set of conditions. Committee
agreed that these conditions exceed standard expectations, not only
mitigating any potential negative cumulative impact in the area but
also actively promoting the licensing objectives. Committee further
agreed that this approach sets a high standard for future
applicants seeking to operate outside the Policy.
 
Committee gave particular weight to conditions
concerning the use of body-worn cameras, deployment of SIA door
staff prior to the commencement of licensable activities, and
installation of a high-standard panic alarm system. It accepted the
submission that the Applicant is setting a new benchmark for
operational standards for late-night premises. Additionally,
Committee found exceptionality in the fact that the Applicant is
already successfully providing late-night refreshment outside the
Policy’s framework hours on peak nights (Friday and
Saturday). While mindful of the Police evidence (discussed below),
Committee accepted that the proposed conditions represent an
improvement over those currently in place and formalised some of
the measures the Applicant was currently implementing on a
voluntary basis.
 
Committee expressed its appreciation to the
Police for their evidence and to Sergeant Yare for attending at
short notice. It was noted that the majority of incidents recorded
at the premises occurred outside the hours relevant to late-night
refreshment. In most cases, Greggs staff were the complainants or
victims, and Committee accepted that there was no indication the
Applicant had contributed to these incidents. Furthermore, few
entries involved non-theft offences. Committee also noted that the
Applicant had assisted Police investigations on several occasions,
which it considered indicative of a commitment to promoting the
prevention of crime and disorder. While a crime-free environment is
ideal, Committee does not believe it is appropriate to penalise
licence holders for responsibly reporting incidents, particularly
when they or their staff are victims.
 
Committee considered Sergeant Yare’s
concerns regarding the potential for a 5am terminal hour to delay
dispersal and attract groups due to affordability. It was
acknowledged that nearby premises such as McDonald's and Taco Bell
already operate until 5am. However, no evidence was presented to
demonstrate that Greggs extending its hours would exacerbate
existing issues. While Committee recognises that predictive
evidence is not always available, it concluded that in this case, a
reasonable comparison could be made with similar operators, and no
compelling evidence was provided to suggest that the
Applicant’s extended hours would be problematic. Committee
also noted that no incidents had been recorded in the last 12
months at either premises after 3.30am.
 
It was accepted by all parties that the
Applicant could, in theory, operate 24 hours without a licence if
only cold food were served between 11pm and 5am. Nevertheless,
Committee concluded that operating under a licence with enforceable
conditions offers greater transparency and control, aligning with
the Policy’s emphasis on scrutiny of premises within the
night-time economy.
 
Committee recognises and values the efforts of
the Police in managing the night-time economy and the behaviours
associated with it. Both Committee and other interested parties
expressed understanding and support for the concerns raised, with
no party seeking to undermine or challenge them. However, the
issues identified were broadly reflective of the night-time economy
as a whole and the general conduct of its patrons, rather than
being attributable to any specific premises or category of
premises.
 
While Committee acknowledges that such
concerns underpin the rationale for cumulative impact areas and
special policies, it remains essential that each application is
assessed on its individual merits. This includes consideration of
the specific licensable activity proposed. In this case, the
application related to late-night refreshment, accompanied by a
comprehensive set of robust conditions. These included provisions
for enhanced CCTV coverage, the use of body-worn cameras, and the
presence of door staff, all of which would contribute positively to
the safe operation within the night-time economy.
 
Giving appropriate weight and consideration to
all written and oral representations, Committee concluded that
Special Policy 2 did not apply, and the applications would promote
the licensing objectives. As such, Committee determined to grant
the applications subject to the proposed conditions outlined.
 
In departing from policy, Committee was
cognisant of the statutory guidance at paragraphs 1.12, 14.28,
14.40, and 14.44. It also considered the principles established in
Hope and Glory (R (on the application of Hope and Glory Public
House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and
Others [2011] EWCA Civ 312), which emphasise that licensing
decisions involve balancing competing considerations—such as
demand, economic benefit, law and order, and local impact—and
require evaluative judgment rather than purely factual
determination.
 
Conditions
 
As set out in the revised schedule of proposed
conditions entitled “Proposed conditions v.3 15.09.25
BDW” (attached to this decision notice).
 
 
Right of Appeal
 
There is a right of appeal against this
decision to Newcastle Magistrates Court.  An appeal must be commenced within 21 days
beginning with the day on which you receive written notification of
the decision.
 
Licensing Authority Review and further revision of (Proposed
Police) conditions Greggs
 
1. 
A CCTV system must be installed and maintained in
proper working order. Such system must:
a. 
Ensure coverage of all entrances and exits of the
licensed premises and coverage of all such areas as may be required
by Northumbria Police.
b. 
Provide continuous recordings for each camera to a
standard for identification and the recordings will be retained for
a minimum period of 31 days.
c. 
Be in operation at all times the premises are in use
for licensable activities.
d. 
Providepolice or other relevant officers of a
responsible authority access to the equipment and recordingswithin
24 hours of a request being made.
e. 
CCTV will be capable of providing pictures of
evidential quality, particularly facial recognition, in all
lighting conditions.
 
2. 
The premises licence holder shall ensure that all
relevant members of staff receive training in their
responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003.Staff training to
include protection of children from harm, safeguarding and
vulnerability training. Such training shall be documented and
records made available upon reasonable request from the Police or
an authorised office of the Licensing Authority. This will include
refresher training which shall be conducted at regular intervals
not exceeding 12 months.
 
3. 
The premises licence holder shall ensure that all
relevant members of staff receive conflict training in addition to
the training as to their responsibilities under the LA 2003 above.
Such training shall be documented and records made available upon
reasonable request from the Police or an authorised office of the
Licensing Authority.
 
4. 
The operator will ensure that at all times when the
premises are open for any licensable activities there are
sufficient competent staff on duty at the premises for the purposes
of fulfilling the terms and conditions of this premises licence and
for preventing crime and disorder.
 
5. 
An incident log will be operated and maintained and
will be produced to a relevant officer of the police or other
relevant officers of a responsible authority upon reasonable
request. The log will be checked and maintained on a regular basis.
It shall contain the following information:
a. 
All crimes reported to the venue or by the venue to
the police
b. 
All ejection of patrons
c. 
Any incidents of disorder
d. 
Any faults on the CCTV system.
 
6. 
The premises will operate a “no open alcohol
containers” policy to prevent persons carrying open alcohol
into the premises.
 
7. 
All required Health and Safety Risk Assessments will
be undertaken in writing and reviewed on a regular
basis.
 
8. 
Litter bins will be provided and emptied
regularly.
 

9. 
The premises licence holder will operate a written
litter management plan to ensure that the premises, including the
area to the front of the building, is kept tidy and free from
litter.
 

10.The
premises licence holder shall have a written late night management
plan in relation to the operation of the premises after 2300 hours
to 0500. This will include staffing levels, doorstaff levels,
monitoring, and general management both inside and outside the
premises on a daily basis.

 
11.Any recycling or
rubbish disposal will not be made between the hours of midnight and
0600hrs.
 
12.Staff will be
instructed to leave the premises quietly.
 
13.Notices will be
displayed at the premises requesting customers respect the needs of
the neighbours and leave the premises quietly.
 
14.One SIA
registered door supervisor will be employed at the premise daily
from 2000hrs to 0500 hrs. A second registered door supervisor
employed at the premises from 2200hrs daily to 0500.
 
15.All SIA Door supervisors and at least one member
of the front of house staff will be required to wear body worn
cameras between the hours of 23:00-05:00. The premises licence
holder will be responsible for storing, controlling, and providing
images to the Police upon request.
 
16. A panic alarm system must be installed within the
premises to enhance staff safety and emergency response.
 
The system
must meet the following requirements:
a. 
It must be linked to an accredited emergency contact
centre capable of monitoring activations, listening to live audio
where applicable, and coordinating an appropriate emergency
response.
 
b. 
It must be integrated with the premises CCTV system,
enabling the emergency contact centre to access live camera footage
upon activation.
 
The system
must be installed, tested, and maintained in full working order
Evidence of maintenance and functionality must be made available
upon request.
 

17.Where
provided, any indoor seating area will be closed from 2300hrs
-0500hrs daily with all service being takeaway only.