Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence received.

There were no interests declared.

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 fifteen minutes.

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

There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

The applicant's representative presented his case and made the following points:

- The thinking behind the application was to achieve flexible licensing hours, which would avoid concentrated ratios of people leaving licensed premises, as referred to in Section 5 of the Council's Licensing Policy.

- It was hoped that the conditions within the licence could be rationalised. There were currently 115 conditions, as a result of variations over many years. Rationalisation of the conditions would remove anomalies, produce a document which was of more relevance to the licence holder, and which was more usable for the Licensing Enforcement Officer. The proposed variation would provide a consistent arrangement which would make more sense and be more enforceable.

- The current licensee is a new operator who was now running the premises in a different manner.

- The concept of the premises has changed and now attracts a different type of clientele. A dress code has been adopted, drinking was not permitted outside, and smoking was confined to an area away from the main entrance.

- The applicant was planning to join the police radio system.

- No less than 4 professional contracted door staff were on duty at weekends.

- The CCTV system has been updated and is now fit for purpose.

- The premises manager also lives on site.

The applicant's representative suggested the additional following conditions if members were minded to approve the application:

a) To require patrons to exit directly onto Market Street

b) To establish a forum with local residents

c) To prevent entry to the premises after 1.30am when the premises was open until 3.00am, and after 1.00am when the premises was open until 2.00am

d) To join the police radio scheme

e) To have door staff on duty at all times

- In respect of the representation from the Police, the arguments raised called for closure of the premises. It did not address the impact of the proposed additional hours or take into account the nature of the new applicant.

- In respect of the representation from the Environmental Health Officer, there was no proposal to alter any of the conditions in respect of the transmission of sound and the control of amplification. The applicant's representative indicated that he was happy with the condition proposed by the Environmental Health Officer.

In respect of the representations from interested parties, the applicant's representative made the following points:

- The Queen's Head had sent a letter to residents encouraging them to object to the application and offering free entry into the club.

- Issues of noise and disturbance had been raised, however the premises are not audible from any of the objectors' dwellings, and any issues would be dealt with by the proposed condition from the Environmental Health Officer.

- The residents who lived closest to the premises had not objected.

- The anti-social behaviour reported could be unrelated to these premises.

- The flexible hours would prevent large gatherings of people and rebuts the presumption in the licensing policy.

There were no questions for the applicant from members.

There were no questions for the applicant from the Responsible Authorities.

In response to a question from an interested party, the applicant's representative clarified the position of the exit onto Market Street and the smoking area.

Sergeant P Sihota presented the representation on behalf of the Police. He stated that the objections to the application were on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, public nuisance and an increased risk of public safety issues. He raised the following points for consideration of the Sub-Committee:

- If this variation application was granted, other licensees have indicated that they would be forced to apply for a variation to protect their business. Therefore this would set a precedent and would have an impact upon Ashby town centre in terms of increased crime and disorder.

- The premises is situated along a passageway, which is problematic for the Police in terms of preventing incidents, as there is no direct view of the entrance or the passageway. This creates a potential flashpoint.

- The extended hours would allow customers to further intoxicate themselves.

- There is an increased risk of public nuisance as the premises is in close proximity to flats and residential properties. Customers congregate in the narrow passageway towards South Street causing noise and disturbance to local residents. It would not be practical to close or police the passageway.

- In respect of public safety, the Police have limited resources and staffing levels are reduced by 50 per cent at 3.00am. There would be financial implications and an impact upon the welfare of officers as they are expected to return to duty later in the day.

- It was accepted that a CCTV system had been installed but this would have very little or no effect on preventing crime and disorder when customers were intoxicated.

Sergeant Sihota referred to the additional paper which had been circulated to all parties. He stated that the figures showed a 30 per cent decrease in offences when the club was closed, and that the premises has a significant impact upon crime and disorder.

In response to questions from members, Sergeant Sihota stated the following:

- The figures shown in the additional paper were not reported incidents, but incidents which the police had attended and where a victim was available to be interviewed.

- The four assaults reported inside the premises did result in injury.

In response to questions from the applicant's representative, Sergeant Sihota stated the following:

- The weekend period referred to in the additional paper was Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, 11.00pm until 8.00am.

- There was no data available in respect of incidents between 2.00am and 3.00am on days where premises were open under the conditions of a Temporary Event Notice.

The applicant's representative questioned the accuracy of the data from the Police regarding the four incidents of assault inside the premises, as the applicant had only been contacted in respect of one incident. Sergeant Sihota explained that it was likely that the other incidents had not required contact with the applicant.

There were no questions for the from the interested parties.

Miss M Haines advised that there was nothing further to add to the written representation from Environmental Protection, and invited questions from all parties.

There were no questions for the Environmental Health Officer from members.

In response to a question from the applicant's agent, the Environmental Health Officer advised that her records did not show whether the premises were open at the time of the complaint on 24 May 2010. The complaint was unsubstantiated and no further action was taken.

There were no questions for the Environmental Health Officer from interested parties.

Mr D Pedder presented his representation. He stated that he was directly affected by music from the club and by noise from people leaving the club. The variation to the licence would extend this later into the night. He reported that his residence was 50 metres from the premises and it was clearly audible. He added that changing the entrance would achieve little. Mr Pedder expressed concern that any future club managers could cause more problems if the variation was granted for the club. He added that he was often woken at night by car doors slamming, and he did not wish to endure this until 3.00am. He stated that the reason for the application was to make money rather than to provide a public service.

There were no questions for Mr Pedder.

Mrs S Adcock presented her representation. She referred to the comment that the nearest residents had not complained, and reported that she only knew of the application due to the letter from the Queen's Head. She added that the police incidents reported were only the tip of the iceberg, and many incidents went unreported as residents felt they would be wasting their time. She reported that one the main problems was noise from cars, and there were also issues with shouting, vomit, urine and broken glass. She added that this would only worsen if the premises were open later. She stated that the incidents made her feel intimidated and unsafe in her own home.

There were no questions for Mrs Adcock from members.

In response to a question from the applicant's agent, Mrs Adcock advised that she could hear noise from the Lamb Inn.

There were no questions for Mrs Adcock from the responsible authorities or the interested parties.

Mr C Tandy presented his representation. He stated that the Police and the street pastors were stretched to full capacity at the weekends, there were 1 or 2 serious crime incidents each week, and extending the opening hours would stretch this out later into the night. He added that the saturation policy states that the applicant must demonstrate that there was no increased impact, and the CCTV would not mitigate this impact. He stated that the application had led to the Queen's Head also applying for later opening hours, which could be seen as a cumulative effect. He added that forcing patrons to exit onto Market Street would not prevent them from entering South Street, and would make Market Street more unsafe. He explained that the Civic Society was informed of the application by a member who resided in the Vaults, who requested that the Civic Society object to the application. He stated that flexible licensing hours were already in operation. He referred to the additional paper submitted by the Police, and highlighted the incident rate of 6.25 over the last 4 months, which was higher than it had ever been in the past.

There were no questions for Mr Tandy.

The Responsible Authorities and the interested parties did not wish to make a closing statement.

The applicant's representative made a closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing. He added that there was a need to tidy up the licence and the higher incident rate was a reflection of the period in the run up to Christmas.

As the applicant's representative had questioned the integrity of the data from the Police regarding the 4 reported assaults inside the premises, the Legal Advisor requested that Sergeant Sihota submit the relevant documentation to enable each of the 3 parties to review it. On consideration of the documentation provided, the Legal Advisor reported that a summary of the incidents with dates and times had been provided by Sergeant Sihota, and on that basis, the report should be taken on face value.

At 7.46pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 8.30pm