Meeting documents

No apologies for absence were received.

There were no interests declared.

Mr C Rees-Gay stated that the objection to the Temporary Event Notice on 6 December was out of time, as it had not been served within 3 working days by the Police. He added that in addition, should there be an appeal to the hearing, the applicant would require 5 working days to hold the appeal. As this would not be possible, the hearing in respect of this particular Temporary Event Notice should not proceed as the legal rights of the applicant would be diminished.

Sergeant G Thompson stated that he could prove the document had been posted and therefore served in time. He added that the applicant had claimed not to have received documents at previous hearings and referred to other hearings which had proceeded with no available appeal period.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that today was the earliest opportunity to hold the hearing.

The Sub-Committee adjourned at 3.02pm to consider whether the hearing for the Temporary Event Notice on 6 December 2012 should proceed. The Sub-Committee reconvened at 3.13pm.

The Chairman advised that, having considered the legal advice, the Sub-Committee felt that they could not proceed with the hearing in respect of the Temporary Event Notice on 6 December 2012.

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.

In response to a question from Sergeant G Thompson, the Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that the condition in respect of capacity listed on the premises licence was imposed under the PEL conditions and it was a matter for the applicant to ensure that the capacity applied for on the Temporary Event Notice was in accordance with the fire risk assessment.

Mr C Rees-Gay presented the case on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:

- The Police had submitted no evidence that the premises had any impact upon public safety and public nuisance.

- CCTV at the premises had been recently upgraded.

- The Environmental Health Officer had not submitted a representation in respect of public nuisance.

- Proactive steps had been taken following the incident which occurred on 2 October 2012. Polycarbonate glasses only would be utilised from 17 December 2012, and all glass bottles would either be decanted or replaced with plastic and aluminium bottles from 17 December 2012.

- The exclusion policy was also being revised and the head doorman replaced.

- 197 incidents were listed in the police evidence of which 7 were related to Bunka. Of these 7 incidents, many are simply door staff undertaking their duties. Only 1 incident actually did occur and was attributable to Bunka.

- A number of Temporary Event Notices had been operated at the premises with no incidents.

- The Designated Premises Supervisor had attempted to liaise with Sergeant Watson prior to the submission of the application for the Temporary Event Notice. No additional conditions had been considered by the Police prior to submission.

- A recent inspection had taken place at the premises and no issues were identified.

Mr C Rees-Gay suggested the following conditions could be applied to the Temporary Event Notice:

- An additional member of door staff, increasing the number from 5 to 6.
- A last entry time of 2.00am, save for persons re-entering the premises having entered earlier i.e. smokers.
- Polycarbonate glasses to be utilised and all glass bottles to be decanted completely by 17 December 2012.

In response to a question from a member, the applicant stated that there was a cost and supply issue with replacing the glass bottles sooner than indicated, however safety was paramount and this would be undertaken as soon as possible.

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

- There was a considerable history of objections to applications at this premises, and 2 recent late TEN applications had had counter notices issued.

- Evidence had been presented that the applicant had recently been convicted of carrying out unlicensed activities and a further breach of conditions was currently under investigation.

- The premises were a contributor to the cumulative impact of crime and disorder in Market Street.

- There had been an escalation in the number of incidents occurring in the area and the situation had worsened over the last few months.

- Granting the application would lead to an increase in noise nuisance.

- The current management team did not have regard to their obligations in respect of the Licensing objectives.

In response to a question from a member regarding his conviction, Mr N Brown stated that he had applied for and been granted a Temporary Event Notice on Good Friday for 2.00am to 3.00am, however as his licence was archaic, it ceased at 10.30pm. He added that he took the decision not to sell alcohol on that night but to invite patrons to pay for entry the following night and to receive free drinks. He stated that he had wrongly considered that this would not be breaking the law.

There were no questions for Sergeant G Thompson.

Sergeant G Thompson and Mr C Rees-Gay made brief closing statements reiterating points made earlier in the hearing.

The Legal Advisor clarified with the representative of the responsible authority, Sergeant G Thompson, and the representatives of the applicant whether in light of the conditions offered by the applicant, the Sub-Ccommittee should consider that the original TEN application had been withdrawn and that they were determining the TEN as amended by the addition of the conditions.

Both representatives confirmed that they agreed to the TEN being amended and determined in its modified form albeit that the Police objection was not withdrawn. Whilst the Police would prefer that the Temporary Event was not permitted,, if it were they would prefer to have the suggested conditions inserted into the Notice.

At 3.55pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 5.19pm.