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 Legal Advisor explained that as there were 8 applications in total, the Sub Committee intended to determine them concurrently. All parties confirmed that they were happy to proceed with this approach.

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

In response to questions from members, the Licensing Enforcement Officer clarified that there were currently 2 premises serving alcohol at the weekends until 3.00am, 3 premises serving until 1.00am and 2 serving until 2.00am. However there were additional TEN applications which were yet to be determined.

Sergeant M Watson presented the objection 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.

- Incidents would significantly increase if the application was permitted. The congregation of large numbers of people would create a flashpoint for violence and there would be an overspill onto the road which would cause a traffic hazard.

- The licence holder had not demonstrated how they would prevent an increase in crime and disorder and promote the licensing objectives.

- There was a residential area nearby and residents should not expect to have a premises open until 5.00am during the week. Patrons would loiter in the vicinity which would have a serious detrimental impact upon residents.

- The application was effectively a request for a variation of the licence over a prolonged period and the application undermined the saturation policy by attempting to circumvent it.

In response to a question from a member, Sergeant M Watson clarified that the reference to late night drinking in the objection submitted by the Police was an error.

Mr R Tosun presented the case on behalf of the licence holder. He made the following points:

- The licence holder would be willing to hire qualified door staff to encourage patrons to disperse.

- To further encourage patrons to disperse the licence holder proposed to offer a limited menu which could be prepared in advance, thereby increasing the speed of service.

- The licence holder would be willing to reduce the hours applied for on Christmas Eve and New Years Eve.

- CCTV and retail radio was already in place at the premises and the licence holder was always willing to work with the Police.

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

- The premises had been open until 5.00am before at an event last year. There were approximately 20 patrons plus staff at that time.

- He would be prepared to reduce the opening hours on Christmas Eve and New Years Eve.

- Door staff had not been employed at the premises in the past.

Mr R Tosun made a brief closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing. He added that the licence holder would also be prepared to reduce the number of TENs applied for.

The Legal Advisor explained that the Sub Committee could not amend the TEN application, and should the applicant wish to amend the opening hours or number of TENs applied for, he would be required to re-submit an application.

Sergeant M Watson made a brief closing statement reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

At 4.47pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and reconvened at 5.34pm.