The Sub-Committee is asked to determine Wendy’s application, taking into account the details in the report and any representations made at this Sub-Committee meeting.

 

The applicant joined the meeting.  

 

The Chair welcomed the applicant who introduced himself as Luke Atkins, District Manager of Wendy’s.

 

The Chair invited the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer to present the report.  

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer summarised the report, noting the requirement for the Sub-Committee to determine a variation application submitted by Wendy’s Restaurant of UK for the Premises Licence of Wendy’s, 1 Magdalen Street, Oxford, OX1 3AE. 

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer outlined the report, stating the applicant applied for: 

• Late night refreshment: Sunday to Wednesday 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours (midnight) and Thursday to Saturday 23:00 hours to 02:00 hours  

• Existing timings for late night refreshment: Friday and Saturday 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours (midnight) 

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer outlined the summary of the report, outlining the current opening hours and the recommended hours. She stated that the application received no adverse comments from the?Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service as a responsible authority under the licensing act. However, the application did receive a representation from TVP which can be found at appendix 3?in the application. As part of their representation, there was a raft of conditions to be added to the license by the Sub-Committee if they were minded to grant the variation. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer noted that there was support from two interested parties which could be found in appendix 4 of the application. 

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer stated that the Sub-Committee should note there is a map attached detailing the applicant’s premises and surrounding areas which is detailed in appendix 5. It must also be noted that this premises is within the City Centres saturation policy. However, this is no longer in force as of the end of April 2025 and is currently being reviewed with a cumulative impact assessment as required under section 55A of the Licensing Act 2003. Details can be found in paragraph 13 to 15 of the report. 

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer reminded the Sub-Committee of its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act, noting that: 

• The Sub-Committee must consider a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the rights of local residents. Any decision taken by the Sub-Committee must be necessary and proportionate to the objectives being pursued. 

• Whenever a decision is made under the Licensing Act 2003, members have a duty to act with a view to promoting the licensing objectives.  

• When considering any representations, only those issues relating to the four licensing objectives should be considered and appropriate weight given to the importance and relevance of each representation.  

• In making its decision, the Sub-Committee must also have regard to the Home Office statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy which are enclosed within the report. 

 

The Sub-Committee were also reminded that they must make one of the following decisions which they consider to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:  

• To grant the variation in accordance with the application.  

• To modify the conditions of the operating schedule by altering or omitting or adding to them.  

• To exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence  

• Reject the whole of the application.  

• May also grant the license subject to different conditions for different parts of the premises and or different licensable activities  

 

Members noted that the applicant or persons making representation have the right of appeal against any decision made by this Sub-Committee this evening. 

 

Councillor Ottino requested information regarding what was open after midnight in surrounding areas. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer provided this information in relation to Medina Kebab Van, Kebab King and Gourmet Burger Kitchen. 

 

Mr Atkins stated that TVP made an objection based on two licensing objectives: crime and disorder, and public nuisance. He addressed these issues, stating that they understood their duty to the local community as they sought to extend the operating hours. He stated that their top priority was the safety and well-being of their customers and restaurant team members, and he believed that their procedures were thorough and aligned with the four licensing objectives. Mr Atkins noted that they were eager to work closely with the relevant authorities to support these objectives.  

 

Mr Atkins referred to the first representation made under the prevention of crime and disorder and stated that their establishments used CCTV surveillance systems, which were placed strategically to cover key areas of the premises both internally and externally. This monitoring helped prevent and detect incidents, ensuring the safety and security of their customers and team members. He also noted that this footage was kept on record for 31 days and was available to any relevant authorities upon request.  

 

Mr Atkins stated they had proposed to have a minimum of two SIA accredited security staff on site from 10pm to 2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, who would be located at the main entrance and in the main dining room area of their restaurant. He added that their team received welfare and vulnerability engagement training, which gave them the skills to prevent and reduce violent crime and help reduce preventable injuries related to alcohol and drug use.  

 

Mr Atkins stated that in reference to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance, their push and pull doors were self-closing, and the team and security staff would encourage customers to be considerate of their neighbours and limit noise when ordering food and leaving the restaurant. He mentioned that their team also patrolled the area outside their premises on an hourly basis during the hours of the late-night license and cleared any litter attributable to them. Mr Atkins also mentioned that they encouraged their delivery drivers to use electrically powered bicycles to minimise disruption to their neighbours. 

 

Councillor Ottino asked why they had two staff only on weekends. Mr Atkins responded that the team had late-night training, and they had not experienced issues during the week, whereas on weekend they observed a higher number of people coming into the restaurant. 

 

Councillor Jupp asked if they closed seating at certain time, and Mr Atkins responded that it is open to everyone but subject to potential closure at any time. 

 

Councillor Jupp asked if they found it difficult to manage potential conflicts. Mr Atkins responded that the layout of their dining room allowed them to move individuals aside in order to mitigate and prevent issues caused by potentially disruptive people. 

 

Councillor Ottino asked which hours they were considering changing. Mr Atkins said they could operate as a delivery only from Thursday to Saturday midnight till 2am, and for the rest of the weekday’s their preference was to have the full dining room open until midnight. If not, he said they were open to dining in being available until 11pm with takeaway only for the final hour. 

 

Councillor Morris queried why CCTV had not been mentioned in the application and asked about its positioning within the premises. Mr Atkins responded that it had recently been installed and was directed toward the entrance.  

 

Councillor Jupp asked how they managed crowds of people late at night with the layout of the premises. Mr Atkins said the natural slow point was the doorway, which was small, and they had security staff managing entry and exit to ensure too many people did not come in or leave at the same time. 

 

Councillor Jupp asked for Mr Atkins’ professional opinion on the pros and cons of stopping the seating area after a certain time. Mr Atkins said the pro would be that they would not need as many staff members if only the kitchen remained open. The con was that people may want the option to sit down. 

 

Councillor Jupp queried the different types of customers and how that changed depending on the time. Mr Atkins said they had a broad appeal and were popular with families as well as young adults. In the evening, families tend to leave and more young adults come in. 

 

Alex Bloomfield, Thames Valley Police, stated that the location fell within a site undergoing a statutory renewal process and that it was a cumulative impact zone. Mr Bloomfield noted that the application regarding the 2am opening raised significant concerns for the police due to crime trends in the area. He stated that the nighttime economy and venues open that late tended to become hotspots for antisocial behaviour due to congregating groups of people who had been drinking.   

 

Regarding security issues, he added that Oxford’s large student population meant that drinking was no longer confined to weekends, and so the assumption that early weekdays posed no challenge was problematic. Mr Bloomfield expressed about the broader impact of the variation due to the location of the premises, as the area had a significant presence of delivery drivers and was frequently congested with mopeds parked around the nearby bookshop and tower.  

 

In relation to the SSP, Mr Bloomfield stated that while they had discussed cumulative impact, they also needed to consider the licensing objectives of the premises. Under Section 18, the application highlighted some points that authorities would be looking for, but it did not present them in a prescribed manner to clearly explain how these objectives would be achieved. 

 

He noted that if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application, the police had listed a set of conditions that they believed would help ensure the premises were properly managed in light of the inevitable challenges.  

 

 

Councillor Ottino asked Mr Bloomfield for his view on the effect of closing the premises to takeaway only after a certain time. Mr Bloomfield responded that the location would still remain a potential hotspot, with people likely loitering in the area. 

 

Councillor Jupp asked Mr Atkins how much litter was typically collected, and Mr Atkins responded that at their Reading premises around five to six pieces of litter were picked up per hour.  

 

Mr Atkins, Mr Bloomfield and The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer left the meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate.

 

The Sub-Committee considered:  

• That the track record of the running of the premises was positive, and the premises was in a quieter area relative to the rest of the city centre 

• That the sub-committee believed the licensing objectives would be upheld by the running of the premises and they could therefore grant the application for the extended opening hours as applied for 

 

Mr Atkins, Mr Bloomfield and The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer rejoined the meeting.

 

The Sub-Committee resolved to: 

• Grant the license as applied for with the opening times as requested, subject to all the TVP conditions. The Sub-Committee additionally added a condition that there will be at least two SIA door staff present from 7pm till closing every day and that any litter from Wendy’s will be cleared from the immediate area on an hourly basis. 

 

The Chair notified Mr. Atkins that he would have 21 days to appeal the decision made during the hearing via the Magistrates Cour from the date of receiving the decision notice. This would include anyone party to the proceedings, including the objectors as noted in the report.   

 

Mr Atkins thanked the Sub-Committee.  

 

Mr Atkins left the meeting.