Meeting documents

None received.

Councillor N Smith declared a non pecuniary interest in respect of the application as his wife owned a business premises on Market Street.

All parties confirmed that they were happy for Councillor N Smith to sit on the Sub-Committee.

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. The maximum time allowed for each presentation was ten minutes.

As the evidence base was the same in respect of both applications, it was agreed by all parties that the applications be considered concurrently, with a separate decision notice issued on each application.

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.

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

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

- The applications sought an increased total capacity and it was questioned how this could be managed safely.

- The Market Street area has long been known as a centre of crime and disorder.

- A number of incidents had taken place relating to the premises, including assaults, an assault during which a bottle was used as a weapon and possession of cocaine. In particular, during the last Temporary Event Notice that the premises had operated, a DJ had claimed to have been assaulted, a male had collapsed and a theft of a handbag occurred.

- The number of incidents in Market Street had dramatically increased and of 54 incidents since February 2012, 25 were directly attributable to the premises.

- As the licence would normally cease at 12.00am, permitting the applications would cause an increase in public nuisance.

- The premises was responsible for 50 per cent of crime in Ashby de la Zouch.

- Extended drinking hours led to an increase in assaults.

In response to questions from Mr N Walton, Sergeant G Thompson stated the following:

- The DJ who had claimed to be assaulted had reported the incident the following day at Loughborough police station.

- There was no need to take a statement from anyone at the premises. The DJ had been intoxicated and witnesses had indicated that she was the aggressor.

- The incident demonstrated that an employee was intoxicated in the premises and was involved in a fracas resulting in her being knocked to the floor. The incident took place within the club as a result of a TEN.

Mr L Firetto stated that the DJ was off duty and was ejected from the club as a result of being intoxicated. He added that there was no assault.

In response to questions from a member Mr L Firetto stated that the DJ was a fiery character and was employed by the club as she was an excellent DJ and very popular.

In response to further questions from Mr N Walton, Sergeant G Thompson stated the following:

- The incident referring to a male who had collapsed was in fact involving a female.

- In respect of the incident relating to possession of cocaine, the door staff had handed the suspect to the police and the door staff had undertaken their duties correctly.

The Legal Advisor referred to the additional information submitted by the Police which had been circulated prior to the hearing. He advised that the information did appear to point to a specific premises and as such the author would need to be contacted to clarify if his objection was relating to this premises, another premises or premises in Ashby de la Zouch generally. The consent of all parties was sought to enable the author to be contacted.

Mr N Walton requested that the meeting be adjourned to enable the matter to be considered.

The meeting was adjourned at 10.23am and reconvened at 10.32am.

Mr N Walton stated that he believed the objection was not relevant to the premises and it would be difficult to put the question to the author in a way which would not prejudice the applicant.

In response to questions from a member, Mr N Walton stated the following:

- Regarding the incident relating to possession of cocaine, intelligence had been received that a gentleman was in the toilet in possession of drugs and the door staff went to him and removed him.

- Searches were undertaken at the premises on entry however there were ways of carrying drugs which could not be detected by means of a search.

- Refusal to undergo a search would result in a refusal of entry.

- There was no drug problem at the premises.

Mr N Walton presented the case on behalf of the applicant. He raised the following points for consideration:

- The police had objected to every Temporary Event Notice, with the exception of 1 event, since the application to vary the premises licence had been granted in February 2012.

- The police had recently agreed to a Temporary Event Notice until 4.00am on condition that additional police officers be paid for. Police resources were not a matter for the Sub-Committee when considering the grant of a Temporary Event Notice.

- 3 Temporary Event Notices had been in operation during 2012, 2 of which had passed without incident.

- 3 incidents were indicated in respect of one Temporary Event Notice. The assault indicated did not occur and there had been no evidence adduced to suggest that the female had had her drink spiked. A theft of a handbag could occur anywhere at any time.

- It had been suggested that CCTV evidence provided was of poor quality and took a long time to obtain. This CCTV evidence was recently in the Magistrates Court and was of excellent quality.

- The premises had operated until 3.00am on Christmas Day for the last 14 years with no objections.

- Opening until 3.00am would prevent a large number of patrons dispersing at the same time.

- Over the Christmas period, all glass bottles would be decanted fully.

- The Police had refused to enter into any discussion or negotiation regarding the Temporary Event Notice.

- As part of the dispersal policy, the street was cleared of all detritus.

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

- The event would not be ticketed. Entry was controlled by clicker.

- Staff are not allowed to drink whilst on duty.

In response to questions from the Police, Mr N Walton stated the following:

- The decanting of glass bottles would commence from 14 December 2012. Replacing the glass bottles with plastic or aluminium had been considered but the cost was prohibitive.

- The exact number of patrons in the premises at 4.00am during the last Temporary Event Notice could not be given, however it was higher than a normal TEN as the headline act was playing during the last hour of opening. The headline act would be playing earlier in future.

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

- There was no act on Christmas Eve. The event had been billed as a Christmas Party.

- The applicant would be prepared to reduce the operating hours to 2.00am.

In response to a question from a member, Sergeant G Thompson stated that he was not prepared to negotiate on any point due to the increase in the number of incidents over the last few months, particularly relating to the premises.

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

At 11.32am the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 12.40pm.