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 Legal Advisor reported that Mr Brown had received the notice of hearing on 28 March, and as such his legal advisor was unable to attend. He sought to clarify whether Mr Brown was happy to proceed with the hearing unrepresented.

The Legal advisor explained that either party could appeal the decision of the Sub Committee, and if either party decided to proceed with an appeal, any such appeal must be lodged by 31 March. As such, the hearing would proceed to enable the requisite appeal period.

Mr Brown confirmed that he had no objection to the hearing going ahead.

The Legal Advisor reminded all parties that objections could only be made on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, and not on the grounds of public safety. He added that the saturation policy did not apply to Temporary Event Notices and therefore the onus was on the Police to demonstrate that the licensing objectives would be undermined.

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 presented his case and made the following points:

- The TEN had been applied for as part of the re-opening of the club following a major refurbishment.

- The premises licence was outdated and had never been reviewed, therefore the TEN application was necessary.

- Other premises already have later licenses for a Sunday evening.

- The Police have submitted evidence of crimes around the premises, however none of these had led to convictions.

- Conflicting information had been provided by the Police as follows:
- Incidents had been repeated throughout the document
- One incident occurred on New Year's Eve and not during a TEN as specified.
- No link to the premises could be demonstrated for one of the incidents.
- Another premises was also operating a TEN on two of the dates and as such the offences were not specific to the premises.
- 13 of the incidents listed took place when the premises were closed.
- The taxi rank was in close proximity to the premises which is also away from the Police presence at the top of the road.

- The evidence presented by the Police did not demonstrate any increase in crime and disorder.

- Since January, a new General Manager had been employed, the doormen now have radios, more cameras had been installed, and new door staff were in place along with strict guidelines on ejection policies.

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

- People who were drunk were not admitted into the premises. All staff were fully trained not to serve anyone who appeared to be drunk.

- It was sometimes difficult to determine how drunk a patron was, especially considering other factors such as drugs.

- The TEN was applied for as part of the reopening following refurbishment. It was hoped that a better clientele would be attracted.

- The premises was previously closed over a period of 2 years.

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

- The Police evidence showed that incidents had occurred in and around the premises.

- A TEN had already been agreed for the re-opening on 7 April, and a second TEN was unnecessary.

- A number of serious assaults had taken place and since October, there was evidence to suggest that 4 assaults had taken place inside the premises.

- The Police had appealed the extension of another operator's licence through the Magistrates Court.

- The Police evidence was irrefutable, and it was not a matter for the Sub Committee whether or not a conviction took place or a crime was followed up. Significant weight should be given to the fact that a crime had been reported.

- The TEN is unreasonable and would lead to a significant increase in crime and disorder if granted.

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

- The Police had not been called upon to attend any incidents inside the premises, however they had attended one particular incident which taken place inside the premises, and had continued into the street, as the two parties had been ejected together.

- Significantly more incidents took place in Ashby than were reported.

The applicant representative made a brief closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing. He added that he had applied for 2 TENs in the last few months, and the Police had raised no objection to these.

Sergeant A Thornley made a brief closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

At 7.16pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 7.58pm.