Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 16, 2025

Purpose:

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.