Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal period of time in which to present their evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be ten minutes.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that all parties had received the additional papers from the Police and the applicant. It was advised that although the Police had added objections on the grounds of public safety, under the Licensing Act the sub committee could only consider the original grounds of crime and disorder. Advice was also given surrounding the saturation policy in Ashby, in that the sub committee could have regard to the policy in this case even though it was a Temporary Event Notice application.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report to members, highlighting background information and the representations received.

In response to questions from Members, the Licensing Enforcement Officer:

- provided details of the 11 other Temporary Event Notices which had been approved in 2011.

- stated that there had been no complaints regarding any of the Temporary Event Notices.

- stated that only one other premises had a Temporary Event Notice for the dates that had been applied for in this case.

At this point the Legal Advisor explained the hearing procedure for people addressing the meeting as the applicant has brought a number of people along with him. The applicant confirmed he would be happy for the people in attendance to speak through himself as the lead.

Due to the nature of the hearing it was agreed for the police authority to present thier objections first before the applicant presented his case.

Sergeant Sihota presented the police authority's objections. He stated that in recent weeks new premises had opened which had already had an impact on the policing of the area and the approval of this application would impact further. The preferred option would be to have the closing times of the premises staggered, this way the area could be policed more efficiently. He stated that the application closes the gap between closing times to 30 minutes which would not be easy to manage, especially if premises were at full capacity as it would mean a large number of people congregating on the street outside the premises. Sergeant Sihota referred members to the statistics provided as additional papers and explained that 12 per cent of the complaints in the last 12 months had been associated with the Lamb Inn. He concluded by urging Members to refuse the application.

In response to questions from Members, Sergeant Sihota:

- stated that the policing numbers were relevant to the application as the cumulative impact with surrounding premises would be high due to the reduced time between closing.

- stated that combined numbers with surrounding premises would be difficult to manage if they were at full capacity but the premises were unlikely to reach full capacity.

- stated that police officers worked 10 hour shifts from 5.00pm to 3am, after 3.00am there were additional costs involved.

- stated that there was no evidence to prove that when a new premises opens it attracts more numbers than usual into the area.

- stated that if the application was approved there would be no additional police resources, they would have to work within the current police numbers.

- stated that the 12 percent of incidents linked to the premises as referred to earlier in the hearing equated to nine incidents in 2011.

The Legal Advisor reiterated the advice given at the beginning of the hearing regarding the saturation policy on request of the applicant.

The applicant presented his case and made the following points:

- He understood the case put forward by the police but assured Members that additional door staff would be used at the premises that also patrol the area outside of the premises. The door staff were linked to all of the others in the area and can be transferred other premises to assist if necessary.

- There were no problems at the previous bank holiday at the premises or on the Ashby area.

- The CCTV at the premises has recently been upgraded for clearer images.

- He had been in the business for 11 years and was competent in dealing with customers has never had to call the police to the premises in the past.

- The premises did have a side entrance but only the front entrance is used.

In response to questions from Members, the applicant stated the following:

- During the additional hour as proposed on Thursday and Saturday there would be on average 100 customers on the premises.

- The age group at the premises was mixed but mainly 20yrs to 40yrs.

- The radio microphones used by the door staff were linked to the CCTV unit in the area.

- The premises would be working to its usual licensing conditions during the additional hour applied for.

- The CCTV in the premise had been upgraded both inside and outside.

- The side entrance was only used for people to have a cigarette. The new premises next door that uses the passageway does not a cause a problem and a member of the door staff is always on duty at the entrance.

The police authority did not wish to make a closing statement.

The applicant gave a brief closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

At 3.30pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 4.00pm.