Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 Licensing Team Leader presented the report and highlighted background information and representations received.

There were no questions for the Licensing Team Leader.

Sergeant S Moore proposed that he present his representation before the applicant, to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to any comments made during his presentation. The Members and the applicant agreed.

Sergeant S Moore presented the representation on behalf of the Leicestershire Constabulary as detailed within the report. He stated that his main concern was that during an incident at the premises, the CCTV system had failed and assurances were needed regarding future use so that it would not happen again.

There were no questions for Sergeant S Moore.

The applicant put forward his case and stated that the application was to ensure the future of the club by maximising the use.

Mr K Harding addressed the Sub-Committee and gave details of the tests to the CCTV system that he had undertaken. He stated that he had advised the applicant to install a new system as there was a fault in the current system.

The applicant reported that the club committee had met on 31 March and had agreed to purchase a new CCTV system. A new security method would be put in place to ensure the best possible management of the system so that there was not a repeat of previous problems.

In response to a question from a Member, the applicant stated that he was willing to have the new system checked by the police before it was installed to ensure it was an appropriate system.

Discussions were had regarding the methods of safeguarding the new CCTV system, Sergeant S Moore stated that he did not want to specify a method to use as that was a decision for the applicant, he did however want assurances that the police could have access to the system when requested.

The Legal Advisor asked for clarification on the proposed operating hours for Sunday. The application requested the supply of alcohol until 1.00am, although the premises closed at 11.00pm. The applicant confirmed that it was a mistake on the application form and that the request should have been for the supply of alcohol until 11am on a Sunday. The applicant confirmed the amendment to the application.

Both parties gave a brief closing statement.

At 7.00pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 7.36pm.

The Legal Advisor read out the Members decision, findings of fact and the reasons for the decision.