'Why did I have to fight for later opening hours?' asks Hanley takeaway owner
KEBAB shop owner Shazad Yaqoob has won a seven-month battle to open his city centre business into the early hours of the morning.
But the 33-year-old claims Stoke-on-Trent City Council's initial refusal to grant his application has caused undue stress and cost him money.
-
VICTORY: Shazad Yaqoob has won a seven-month battle with the city council to open his Chilli Jacks takeaway in Hanley for longer.
This week the authority gave permission for Trinity Street-based Chilli Jacks to open until 3.30am.
The move represents a U-turn by the authority after councillors previously denied the businessman, who also owns a takeaway in Meir, permission to even open the takeaway after 11pm.
Do you have an interview coming up and would like some professional help and support. Contact BlueSky CVs - the local specialist to help and support you!
10% discount off web prices.
Terms: 1 session per person
Contact: 01538 710408
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
Mr Yaqoob, of Dresden, said: "This has caused me a lot of stress but I am very relieved that I finally have permission.
"The police raised objections against the later opening because they were worried about people queuing outside the shop and getting into fights.
"But my shop is three times as big as the other ones in Hanley so queuing is never a problem.
"If anything drinkers having somewhere else to go after a night out will cut down on queues in other places."
The businessman initially applied for a premises licence to open until 5am back in June.
The application came after he signed a 15-year lease for the outlet before spending £40,000 refurbishing it.
After the council's refusal he took the case to Stafford Magistrates Court who overturned the ruling and confirmed the could open until 2am.
A council hearing had been scheduled for earlier this month to consider a new application to open until 3.30am.
However that was adjourned after Mr Yaqoob raised concerns that the authority was using the same legal adviser who had heard his previous applications.
This week the authority approved the proposals.
Mr Yaqoob said: "It will be a good thing for Hanley because drinking and takeaways go hand in hand.
"I'm not disappointed that I can't open until 5am because I don't want anti-social behaviour in the shop any more than the police do.
"But I've been struggling to turn a profit on the shop since I opened it in October.
"At the end of the day it is my living. Hopefully things will start to pick up for me now."
Takeaway customer, Craig Edwards, from Fenton, said he thought the new opening times would not cause a problem in the city centre.
The 35-year-old said: "I was surprised that the council wouldn't allow Shazad to open until 3.30am in the first place.
"I tend to go to the takeaway if I've been for a night out in Hanley. It's a nice place with fast service and friendly staff.
"It's also very spacious so you're not squashed in when your waiting for your food. All the other takeaways in the area seem to open until late so I can't see it causing any more trouble."
The takeaway will open seven-days-a-week from 5pm.
34 Comments
View all
by thetruth72
Sunday, March 10 2013, 7:45PM
“Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I happen to think that 'most readers' are actually just waiting for you to 'man up' and tell us what you mean when you use phrases like 'diversification' and 'other business activities' with regards to establishments like the one in this story. Is the question really that difficult to answer? It probably is for anyone who has little or no moral courage.
And so while I wait for you to grow a pair Arthur, I suppose I'll just have to make do with your exceedingly successful attempts at self-humiliation. I know it's wrong of me to enjoy your misfortune so much, but watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper in to trouble with every comment of unsophisticated and ineffective avoidance is almost hypnotic.”
by arthurheath1
Sunday, March 10 2013, 5:35PM
“Edit:)
Personally, I think most readers would prefer your second line, along with any other lines you cobble together to be left blank. Your posts would make far better sense and be more interesting.”
by thetruth72
Friday, March 08 2013, 8:19AM
“Edit:)
The second line of my last comment should read as follows;
"The accusation – if that's what you want to call it - I'm making against you is that you are not explicitly stating what you mean when you use phrases like 'diversification' and 'other business activities' with regards to businesses like the one in this story. It's really that simple."”
by thetruth72
Friday, March 08 2013, 8:10AM
“It will be my pleasure to 'man up' and say exactly what I mean Arthur.
The accusation I'm making against you is that you are not explicitly stating what you mean when you use phrases like 'diversification' and 'other business activities' with regards to businesses like the one in this story. It's really that simple. I was going to say that I'm surprised that you couldn't work that out for yourself… but thinking about it, I'm not surprised at all.
And now that I've 'manned up' for you and clarified what I mean, are you going to do the same? Can you find the guts to explain what YOU mean when YOU use phrases like 'diversification' and 'other business activities' with regards to businesses like the one in this story Arthur?
Of course you can't.”
by arthurheath1
Friday, March 08 2013, 6:16AM
“Lol @ the lie72
How hypocritical, hiding behind words like "appear" and "presumably" and all the time you have the temerity to say I should clarify what I mean! You really can't see the irony can you? Avoidance and repetition? You could write the book
Come on "TheLie72", you're the one making accusations, so man up and say what you mean.”
by thetruth72
Thursday, March 07 2013, 6:33PM
“Ahhh, now I see what the problem is; you either can't read or can't understand basic English. I'm sorry that I overestimated your capacity for understanding. Were you a juror on the original Vicky Pryce trial by any chance? Just to remind you, this is what I said:-
"…it would appear that you don't have the courage to be more explicit with regards to the other - presumably illegal - 'business activities' that you contend are taking place."
You will notice that the words 'appear' and 'presumably' are positioned before the word 'illegal'. If you look those words up, you will find that they effectively mean that I'm not and never have accused you of anything, or indeed put words into your mouth. If you think that I am then I'm afraid that it's all in your apparently rather empty head. I'm simply looking for clarification on what YOU mean when YOU use the phrases 'diversification' and 'other business activities'. Which, by the way, you STILL haven't had the intelligence and / or guts and / or honesty to do. Why am I not surprised?
And I may not be the sharpest Arthur, but compared to you I'm practically a surgeons scalpel. So is it now time for you to post a whole load of avoidance and repetition again? I'm guessing that it is.”
by arthurheath1
Thursday, March 07 2013, 5:23PM
“Round and round he goes. I am beginning to feel rather sorry for you now, unable to grasp the simplest of concepts. I'm rather surprised that you attempt to put words in my mouth ("illegal") and then go on to say that you will not put words into my mouth! You silly little noggin headed fool. Lol. You're certainly not the sharpest, are yo? Pffft”
by thetruth72
Thursday, March 07 2013, 1:12PM
“Well I was right; just more regurgitation from a person who can't bring himself to be honest. I can't say that I'm surprised you have chosen that route, and I've no doubt that you will traverse that same path again, and again, and again.
And as for me 'not getting the concept' of you wanting me to tell you what I think you mean, I can assure you that I do get it. I'm not going to comply though, as asking me to do that is a bit like asking me to put words into your mouth, and I'm quite frankly astonished that you would want me to do such a thing.
But of course you could end this argument right now by just telling me what YOU mean when YOU use the phrases 'diversification' and 'other business activities'. After all, YOU are the one that chose to use them, and if YOU don't know what YOU mean when YOU use those words, then why did YOU say them in the first place? If you don't mean illegal activities, then what do you mean? And if you do mean illegal activities then just show us the evidence you have and / or take it to the Police. It's really very simple when you think about it.
Now let's have some more of your patented regurgitation; it's all that you are capable of I'm afraid.”
by arthurheath1
Thursday, March 07 2013, 10:24AM
“You don't get the concept of a perfectly reasonable request for YOU to say what you think I mean. \it is you who is making claims that I mean illegal business, as I myself have not said anythig about "illegal". So please, have the balls to say what you are accusing me of. YOU are the one throwing accusations around, so put your money wher your not inconsiderable mouth is sunshine. If you feel that these people are running illegal operations from their takeways, then please say so. If only you could research if these takeaways had a high proportion of involvement with drugs trafficking, you know, perhaps by using google, for instance, then maybe you could back up your claims.”
by thetruth72
Thursday, March 07 2013, 9:00AM
“@arthurheath1
If you can tell me where you got those 'numbers' from in the first place then I've already said that I'll consider them. But making up a few arbitrary figures and then applying some basic mathematics proves absolutely nothing, and the very fact that you have constantly failed to support your own claims with any facts at all is telling to the point of being laughable.
And speaking of 'your own claims', let me remind you that the phrases 'other business activities' and 'diversification' were brought up by YOU. In fact this whole debate relates to YOU consistently making similar claims in other stories without having the b*lls to say whatever it is that you REALLY mean. So YOU tell me 'Arthur' (assuming that IS your name), why should I tell YOU what YOU mean by the words that YOU YOURSLF have used. Self-explanation is a concept that most 5 year old children can cope with, so why are you having so many problems grasping the importance of describing what you mean? Or is it that you truly don't know what you are talking about? Now there's a thought…
But looking at your contribution to this thread as a whole, I can draw only three conclusions from your utter refusal to be more explicit; that you have no real proof to support your claims of whatever it is you mean by 'diversification' and 'other business activities', that you are using these stories to promote your obvious personal dislike for these businesses, and that you are a gutless hypocrite who, if you told me that grass was green, I would go outside to check.
On the other hand, it's not too late to redeem yourself; all you have to do is provide some kind of solid evidence that proves your claims, and then be honest with me – and yourself - about why you have an issue with these establishments.
Sadly, I fear that if you decide to reply, your comment will be nothing more than a simple regurgitation of your previous attempts to justify your precarious position. I could be wrong of course… but I doubt it.”