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 son presented his case. He stated the following points:

- As soon as the clubs closed, customers come looking for food.

- He wanted to have the opportunity to open later as there were no customers before the club closed.

- Additional CCTV cameras would be installed inside and outside the shop to upgrade security.

- The shop served drunk people coming out of Ciros until 2.30am.

- The list of incidents provided by the Police did not indicate a location and could not be linked to the shop.

- If any incident happened inside the shop, he would be sure to let the Police know as soon as possible.

- The shop did not make much profit being open until 2.30am.

- Without the ability to make more profit, more people could not be employed to improve the speed of the service.

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

- He was not aware that the Police had objected to the extension of the Ciro's licence and were seeking to have this revoked.

- Additional CCTV cameras would be placed inside and outside the premises and these would be monitored by staff.

- The people being served at the premises were not completely drunk.

- The outside of the premises was cleaned when the premises closed, with a full clean each Sunday. If any litter was dropped this was cleaned as soon as possible.

- The shop was open from 12 noon until 2.30am.

- The yellow lines outside the premises also adversely affected the business and the additional hour was required if the business was to continue to remain viable.

There were no questions from the Responsible Authority.

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

- A list of offences which had taken place on Market Street had been included in the agenda circulated to members. Over 48 weekends, 59 incidents had been reported, 39 of which had occurred in the nighclub adjacent to the fish bar.

- The installation of CCTV already formed part of the conditions of the applicant's licence and therefore this was an irrelevant consideration as this would not mitigate against crime and disorder.

- Granting the application would be a variance of the Council's Licensing Policy and the joint Community Safety Strategy.

- The applicant's business was already open for a sufficient number of hours and the application was unnecessary.

- Granting the application would lead to an increase in crime and disorder.

In response to questions from a member, Sergeant A Thornley stated the following:

- The granting of the application would mean that the dispersal of patrons exiting the nightclub would be extended further into the night. The extra hour may seem insignificant but would encourage people to congregate for a longer period of time which would cause a flashpoint.

The applicant's son made a brief closing statement and stated that if the application were permitted, he would be willing to employ doormen, additional staff to increase the speed of service, and sign up to the retail radio link.

Sergeant A Thornley made a brief closing statement on behalf of the Responsible Authority reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

The Legal Advisor explained that the financial viability of the business was not a relevant consideration for the Sub Committee.

At 10.38am the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and reconvened at 10.59am.