Meeting documents

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 twenty minutes.

It was agreed that the applications be considered together, with a decision notice issued on each separate application.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the reports 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:

- 27 late night events had taken place at the premises over the last year under Temporary Event Notices. These events ran for extended hours between 3.00am and 5.00am, with no issues. The police have raised no objections to any of the 27 Temporary Event Notices. Operating the premises for extended hours, as per the Temporary Event Notices, has no cumulative impact upon crime and disorder and public nuisance.

- In respect of the complaints regarding noise nuisance, the complaint on 10 May 2010 was unsubstantiated, and the complaint on 20 December 2011 was still ongoing. The applicant's representative explained that on both dates, the premises were closed at 11.00pm, and 20 December 2011 was also the first day on which the notice of the application to vary the licence was displayed at the premises.

- A letter had been sent to all residents on 9 December 2011 advising them of the variation application, and one response had been received regarding noise nuisance.

- The licence holder was unaware of any complaints regarding noise nuisance.

- In respect of the Temporary Event Notices, 3 incidents had been reported after 3.00am during the operation of the 27 events. This does not demonstrate a proclivity to increasing crime and disorder.

- The premises operated a dispersal policy, and door staff were on hand to encourage patrons to exit, not assemble on the streets and to direct them to taxi ranks. Marshalls also conducted a litter patrol.

- Food was available inside the premises which reduced the need for patrons to visit takeaways.

- Experience had shown that during the late night events, patrons would exit the premises at a more gradual rate.

- There was no evidence in respect of any noise nuisance.

- The acoustic lobby requested by Environmental Health was unnecessary as there was no noise nuisance.

- There was no history of complaints in respect of the premises.

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

- There were 4-5 door staff working between 2.00am and 2.30am and they worked closely with the police to actively move patrons on.

- Cones issued by the police were placed outside the premises to prevent cars parking.

In response to a question from the interested parties, the applicant stated that an incident book and a record of noise complaints were kept.

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

- There would be a cumulative impact over time, as there would be a chain reaction of other premises applying for variation of their licences.

- Most premises were open until 2.00am and this was plenty of time for people to drink and socialise.

- The reason for the application was that the Continental had also applied for a variation. The applicant did not want to extend the hours and had indicated that they would withdraw if the Continental were unsuccessful.

- The Police did not object for the sake of doing so and tried to support Temporary Event Notices.

- The extended hours would cause a public nuisance as the premises were in close proximity to a residential area. Patrons leaving the premises were loud and abusive, and neighbouring streets were also affected. PC Arjoo had received complaints from an old people's complex and had examples of burglaries committed by intoxicated persons.

- Public safety would be negatively impacted due to the impact upon CCTV monitoring.

- The extended hours would impact upon the effectiveness of police resources at a time of a 20% budget cut.

- The NHS and ambulance service were already overstretched and would be unable to reach those who had been assaulted.

- The crime statistics show a total of 105 incidents in Ashby town centre. Of 28 incidents which had taken place in pubs and clubs, 14 had occurred in Ciro's.

- Out of the 105 incidents, 53 had taken place after 2.00am. Extending the opening hours would increase the number of incidents between 3.00am and 5.00am.

- Extending the opening hours would cause increased gathering of intoxicated persons, which would not be dispersed as taxis would be less available.

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

- Police staff were placed to assist with patrons exiting dependent upon the resources available.

- The incident where windows were broken was caused by a patron who had exited the premises and fell into a window following a dispute.

Miss M Haines presented the representation on behalf of Environmental Health. She stated that the acoustic lobby on the door to the smoking area would be crucial as this door did allow sound to break out.

There were no questions for Environmental Health.

Mr C Tandy presented the representation on behalf of the Ashby Civic Society. He raised the following points for consideration:

- The onus was on the applicant to provide evidence that the application would cause no cumulative impact, not on the Police to provide evidence of harm.

- Police evidence shows that there were 9 incidents during the operation of the Temporary Event Notices, showing that there was an impact upon crime.

- Evidence had been submitted by 2 local residents regarding late night noise. This would extend later into the night if the application was permitted, giving only 2 hours between the closure of the premises and the arrival of the street cleaners.

- There was clearly a negative impact and the applicant had provided no mitigating evidence.

There were no questions for Mr Tandy.

The applicant's representative made a closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing. He added the following points:

- The applicant had demonstrated that they could run the premises with extended hours, with no cumulative impact upon crime and disorder.

- No evidence had been adduced regarding CCTV monitoring, the NHS, or the availability of taxis.

- Policing was not a matter for the Sub-Committee.

- No evidence had been adduced regarding the leakage of noise from the door to the smoking area.

At 3.10pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 4.00pm.