Meeting documents

No apologies for absence were 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 due to a clerical error, some of the supporting information submitted by Leicestershire Police had been omitted from the agenda. She sought to clarify whether the applicant was happy to accept the additional information which had been circulated at the meeting for consideration with the agenda.

The applicant confirmed that he was happy to accept the additional information.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report to members, highlighting background information and the representations received.

In response to a question from the applicant, the Licensing Enforcement Officer clarified that the application was for Saturday, 20 October from 2.01am until 3.00am.

The applicant presented his case and made the following points:

- There was a large cost associated with hire popular DJs and as such extra time was needed to cover costs and provide patrons with value for money.

- Adding 1 extra hour would not increase crime and disorder or public nuisance.

- Since the incidents which had taken place last year, the applicant had considered how the business could improve the situation. Countermeasures had been implemented and new door staff, manned CCTV and radios had been put in place. Since then, there had been no serious incidents inside the premises in the past 10 months.

- The last incident which had taken place inside the premises was caused by people from out of town who were intent upon causing trouble. Since then, plastic glasses and plastic and aluminium bottles had been integrated to prevent a reccurrence of such an incident.

- A number of TENs had been granted in the past year with no problems.

- The premises was within the area covered by the saturation policy, however this had no bearing on TENs.

- The Police argued that revellers would drink more, however consumption was not a licensable activity and therefore it must be assumed that patrons could not drink any more than they ordinarily would as staff would be breaking the law.

- Additional door staff could be provided if required.

- The extension by 1 hour would prevent people leaving at the same time.

- The policies recently put in place by the club had reduced crime in the premises.

- The Police had not objected to TENs previously at the premises.

- TENs were required in order for the business to survive and remain in competition with other clubs with later licences.

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

- The DJ would start at 12.00am. He could not start earlier as patrons would not have arrived in the club. Also DJs often played 2 or 3 sets at various locations in one night.

- Patrons would usually start leaving the club at 1.00am, even if a good DJ was playing.

- The application had been submitted later on this occasion due to the objections from the Police. The applicant confirmed that this meant that he had no opportunity to appeal to the Magistrate's Court.

- There had been no serious incidents inside the premises since January. There had been a few scuffles and patrons ejected from the club.

- The TEN which was applied for in September 2012 was voluntarily withdrawn due to concerns raised by the Police.

- Market Street was the main thoroughfare for patrons exiting the club.

- Later entry to the premises was not currently restricted. The applicant confirmed that he would be happy for this to be a condition of the TEN.

In response to a question from the Police, the applicant clarified that discounted entry with wristbands took place on Saturdays, not on Fridays.

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

- Granting the application would have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance.

- Whilst the saturation policy did not apply to the TEN, it was still a relevant consideration.

- The data submitted showed the timings of incidents which coincided with the timing of TENs and the CCTV logs showed additional incidents which were not always reported to the Police.

- A recent incident had taken place at the premises where a customer was assaulted by 2 males.

- The recent breaches of licence showed that the management were unable to plan effectively.

- The capacity of the club was in place for a reason and a TEN was not the appropriate way to increase this.

- Concerns were expressed regarding overcrowding and exceeding the capacity given the recent breaches at the premises.

- From a total of 19 incidents shown in the logs submitted, 12 had occurred after 2.00am. Incidents had also occurred on nights where TENs were taking place.

- The owner had recently been convicted of breaching his licence and the current Designated Premises Supervisor was unable to be contacted. The management had clearly undermined the licensing objectives and could not be relied upon.

Mr N Brown stated that he had not received a copy of the agenda which had been circulated to all parties prior to the hearing.

It was agreed that the meeting be adjourned to enable the Licensing Enforcement Officer to ascertain that the agenda and notice of hearing had been sent to the applicant.

The meeting adjourned at 3.15pm and was reconvened at 3.29pm.

The Legal Advisor reported that the Licensing Enforcement Officer had demonstrated that the agenda and notice of hearing had been circulated to all parties and the Applicant was happy to proceed with the hearing having had time to review the papers.

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

- Up until recently, TENs had been agreed at the premises following amendments being requested.

- There had been no attempt to come to an agreement in respect of this TEN as the relationship with the applicant had been undermined due to the recent breaches in licence.

- There were a limited number of police officers available after 3.00am.

In response to a question regarding the offence which he had recently been convicted of, Mr N Brown stated that he had not noticed until the last minute that his licence ceased at 10.30pm on Easter Friday, and so the conviction was based on a technicality as the wrong time had been applied for. He added that he was prosecuted for serving alcohol although no payment was taken on that night. Sergeant G Thompson added that Mr N Brown had been advised that he could not take this action and the Magistrate had not considered it to be a technical matter. The Licensing Enforcement Officer confirmed that Mr N Brown had been sent a letter advising him of the limitations of his licence on Good Friday.

Mr N Brown and Sergeant M Watson made brief closing statements reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

At 3.45pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 4.09pm.