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

Following a question from a Member, the Licensing Enforcement Officer advised the Committee that on the date of the requested Temporary Event Notice there were two licensed premises that were licensed to midnight, one licensed to one am and one licensed to two am.

There were no questions from the police or the premises licence holder.

Sergeant G Thompson presented the representation on behalf of the Police. He advised the Committee that there was a considerable history of objections to applications at this premises, and several recent late TEN applications had had counter notices issued.
He informed the committee that the applicant had recently been convicted of carrying out unlicensed activities and a further alleged breach of conditions was currently under investigation.

He advised Members that the premises was a contributor to the cumulative impact of crime and disorder in Market Street and that there had been an escalation in the number of incidents occurring in the area and the situation had worsened over the last few months.
He felt that the current management team did not have regard to their obligations in respect of the Licensing objectives and urged the Committee to reject the Temporary Event Notice.

Following questions from Members, Sergeant G Thompson advised the Committee:-

- That there were no issues to report following the event that had taken place on the Saturday before.

- That in relation to some of the highlighted incidents. Two males involved in one incident had never been traced, persons involved in the incident where Police Officer were abused were charged with a variety of offences and in relation to the incident where a male had received a head injury he advised that it had never been reported, only picked up on CCTV, and he was unaware if it was related to the club.

- That at the last hearing to consider a Temporary Event Notice for the premises, he had had to leave before the decision, however had agreed prior to leaving that should the notice be withdrawn and re-submitted with the new conditions on, the Police would not object.

- That the Police had no confidence in the staff operating the club due to the recent conviction, not abiding by decisions, staff allowing customers to drink excessive amounts of alcohol and that staff would be expected to refuse alcohol to any customer that had already drunk too much.

There were no questions from the Premises Licence Holder.

Mr N Brown, Premises Licence Holder addressed the Committee. He advised the Members that the Police had submitted no evidence that the premises had any impact upon public safety and public nuisance and that the CCTV at the premises had been recently upgraded.
He informed the Committee that the Environmental Health Officer had not submitted a representation in respect of public nuisance. He also advised the Committee that 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. Also the exclusion policy was also being revised and the head doorman replaced. He highlighted to Members that 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.

Mr Brown explained that a number of Temporary Event Notices had been operated at the premises with no incidents and a recent inspection had taken place at the premises and no issues were identified.

He informed the Committee that the conviction that he had received had been a misunderstanding of an archaic licence and that he had wrongly considered that he would not be breaking the law.

Following questions from Members, Mr Brown stated:-

- That during the opening hours the premises would have four bar staff, two doormen and two mangers at any one time in a room.

- That the exit from the club was out on to Market Street and that there was no last entry time.

- That numbers in the club were monitored by clickers and there were never any queues.

- That the sale of alcohol was currently permitted to midnight and entertainment permitted to 2pm under his licence.

In response to questions from Sergeant G Thompson, Mr Brown stated:-

- That the incident involving males with no shirts on had happened very quickly and was dealt with as soon as it could have been.

- That his position at the time of his conviction was owner and designated premises supervisor.

- That he would like to apply to have certain conditions removed from the licence.

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

At 7.30pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 8.04pm.