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 the applicant's case. She stated the following points:

- It had been considered prudent to tidy up the conditions of the licence at the same time as applying for variation, and many of the changes to the start times were for this purpose. The crux of the application was the extension by 1 hour at weekends and the extension of the non-standard timings.

- The current designated premises supervisor had been in post for seven years and had provided stable and consistent management.

- 15 staff were currently employed and an additional 4 door staff during late night opening.

- The premises attracted an older clientele than other premises in the area.

- The premises had a good relationship with neighbours as could be evidenced by the letter of support included in the agenda.

- The premises had a good working relationship with the Police and incidents inside the premises were few and far between.

- CCTV, door staff and staff training were in place to promote the licensing objectives. The licensing manual included in the agenda was referred to.

- Challenge 21 was in place and the premises had passed recent test purchases in Ashby.

- The designated premises supervisor was the standing chair of the Ashby Pubwatch scheme.

- Signs were displayed at the premises asking people to leave the premises quietly.

- The premises had utilised a number of Temporary Event Notices for the requested extended hours in the past year. There had been no incidents connected with the premises while the TENs were in operation.

- The purpose of the extension was not to attract new clientele to the premises but to provide a facility for the existing clientele.

- The extension would have a positive impact in terms of dispersal as it would reduce migration to other premises.

- The applicant would be happy to accept a condition to prevent new entrants to the premises after 1.00am.

- A dispersal policy was in place and the designated premises supervisor had been working with a local taxi firm to facilitate collection of patrons from the car park at the rear, which would reduce the number of people congregating on the streets and at taxi ranks.

- The beer garden was currently in operation until 1.30am. The applicant expressed concerns regarding the request of Environmental Health to impose additional restrictions on its use.

- The current condition in respect of the text or radio pagers was inappropriate as this system was no longer utilised. The premises had an in house radio system and links to the retail radio scheme. It was suggested that an appropriately worded condition be inserted to reflect this.

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

- The licensing manual and incident log were completed and utilised daily.

- Signage was displayed at the premises highlighting the zero tolerance approach to drugs and violence.

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

- Pubwatch meetings took place no more than twice a year.

- Evidence could be provided regarding refusal of entry and sales.

Sergeant G Thompson presented the representation on behalf of the Police. He stated the following points:

- The Bulls Head as a premises was not problematic in itself, the objection of the Police was regarding the wider picture of events in Ashby town centre.

- The extension of hours would have a negative cumulative impact and would cause a risk of increase crime and disorder if granted.

- The onus was on the applicant to persuade the Sub Committee that the actions they would take could mitigate against any negative cumulative impact. The applicant believes that there would be no negative cumulative impact and therefore was not taking any mitigating action. As such the applicant had not demonstrated that granting the application would not add to the existing cumulative impact.

- The licensing manual which had been submitted was a blank generic document and provided no evidence of how this particular premises was run.

- It could be seen from the CCTV log that patrons had been ejected from the premises on 3 occasions and had been reported as being drunk.

- Permitting the application could drastically increase footfall in Ashby.

- In respect of the TENs, whilst no incidents had been reported inside the premises, incidents had occurred in the area around Market Street, one of which had been reported by the designated premises supervisor of the Bull's Head.

- The map included in the agenda showed how many licensed premises were located in Market Street and demonstrated that the Bull's Head was located in the centre of the problem area.

- The applicant wished to abdicate their responsibility and not take any additional measures. To grant the application would be in contravention of the licensing objectives.

In response to a question from a member, Sergeant G Thompson stated that the suggested dispersal from the rear of the premises could potentially cause problems as the rear was not well covered by CCTV.

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

- The references on the CCTV log to the premises were not instances where patrons had been refused service.

- It was not considered that a condition regarding last entry would ensure that the application had no negative cumulative impact as the premises was not a registered club and earlier entry could not be controlled.

Mr S Leeland presented the case on behalf of Environmental Health. He advised that the condition regarding the beer garden had been requested following a night time noise monitoring exercise, where the noise level from the beer garden had prevented monitoring of a nearby premises.

In response to questions from the applicant's representative, Mr S Leeland stated that there had been no concerns raised by local residents and any issues had been resolved immediately by the designated premises supervisor. The noise monitoring had taken place at 12.05am.

The applicant's representative and Sergeant G Thompson made brief closing statements reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

At 3.57pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and reconvened at 4.50pm.