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 ten 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. He put forward some amendments to the application as follows:

- Remove the seasonal variations on page 26.

- The timings in box O on page 28 be amended to reflect the timings in box L on page 26.

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

- The representation from the Police shared the opinion that three late night premises was sufficient, however the Council's Licensing Policy states that need is not a consideration.

- There is no evidence to support the assertion that the application would create an adverse cumulative impact if granted.

- By having an additional premises open, patrons would be served sooner and would disperse faster, alleviating a potential pinchpoint.

- There was no evidence to suggest that other premises had issues with crime and disorder.

- Crime has reduced significantly since the police figures in 2006/7 when the saturation policy was introduced.

- No individual resident had written in to object to the application.

- The representation from the Civic Society was generic and there was no evidence that this had gone before a meeting of the Civic Society.

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

- The crime statistics showed 31 violent crimes from January - December 2011 and the comparable figure for January - December 2006 showed 96 violent crimes.

- The proposed conditions on the continuation sheet were enforceable and there would be a criminal sanction in the event of a breach. This condition had been offered by the applicant as the police did not want this particular individual involved with the operation of the premises.

- The previous manager of the premises had no financial interest in the building.

- In respect of proposed conditions 5 and 6 on the continuation sheet, a 25m curtilage either side of the store would be monitored for litter, and people would be asked to leave if eating and drinking immediately outside the premises.

- The applicant did not accept points 2 - 5 of the representation from the Police.

- Members of staff would ensure that customers were not gathering outside. the premises already operated until 11.00pm with no problems and the staff have undertaken relevant conflict management training.

- There would be 3 members of staff serving until 2.30am on a normal day.

The applicant's representative indicated that he would accept a condition on the licence requiring the employment of a doorperson on Friday and Saturday nights.

In response to a question from an interested party, the applicant's representative advised that the tables were not fixed to the floor and would be stored in the WC area.

Police Constable M Arjoo presented the representation on behalf of the Police. He raised the following points for consideration:

- As a regular observer of the nighttime economy, he was aware that a number of incidents of assault and public disorder had taken place near to and inside the takeaway.

- Permitting the application would add to the existing problems with the nighttime economy.

- An existing food outlet had already decided to close early due to problems with disorder.

- The proposed extension of hours would encourage intoxicated persons to gather outside of the takeaway creating a potential flashpoint which would impact upon the level of CCTV monitoring required.

- The takeaway is near a residential area and the application would create a public nuisance in terms of noise and litter. Vermin had been observed in the vicinity and the proposals would increase this problem.

- Police resources were overstretched and the proposals would impact upon the prevention of crime and disorder in other locations.

- The application would add to crime and disorder.

In response to questions from members, PC Arjoo stated the following:

- There was no statistical evidence to indicate that vermin and public nuisance would worsen.

- If another premises opened late, it would encourage intoxicated people to remain and cause trouble. If there were queues, they may choose to get a taxi and go home.

- A doorperson may assist in detecting offences but would not prevent them.

In response to questions from the applicant, PC Arjoo stated the following:

- The Police would like customers leaving the licensed premises to disperse as soon as possible.

- Having 3 premises open would mean that customers would be served quicker.

- There were no specific statistics in respect of offences relating to the burger van, as the statistics related to incidents in the whole of Market Street.

- No evidence of crime and disorder relating to the takeaways had been provided by the Police within the requisite 28 days.

Mr K Ward presented the representation on behalf of the Ashby Civic Society. He stated the following:

- It was accepted that the proposed conditions would help to meet the licensing objectives.

- There had been a number of incidents reported in the vicinity of and inside the premises.

- Granting the application would have a negative cumulative impact.

In response to questions from members, Mr Ward stated the following:

- The Civic Society held a committee monthly and a public meeting to discuss matters of objection. Members of the Civic Society are happy that the group objects to late night licenses.

- Street pastors have attended a meeting in the past.

In response to questions from the applicant's representative, Mr Ward stated the following:

- A resolution was passed to object to the application and this was minuted.

- No individual resident had contacted the Civic Society and asked that they object to it on their behalf.

The Police 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 the following points:

- There was no objection from the Environmental Protection department in relation to litter.

- He disagreed with the assertion from the Police that a doorperson would not prevent incidents.

- It was accepted that having 3 fast food outlets open would mean that patrons were served faster and therefore would disperse sooner.

- The crime statistics showed that the situation was not worsening, and had improved significantly since 2006.

- The lack of Police resources could not be taken into account by the Sub-Committee.

At 7.52pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 8.14pm.