Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Coalville

Contact: Democratic Services  Licensing Enforcement Officer (01530 454596)

No. Item


Election of Chairman


It was moved by Councillor R Ashman, seconded by Councillor M Specht and




Councillor A C Saffell take the chair for the remainder of the meeting.



Apologies for Absence


There were no apologies for absence received.



Declaration of Interests

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.


No interests were declared.



Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence pdf icon PDF 98 KB

PREMISES:   Manhattans Night Club, 60a Market Street, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire


APPLICANT:Disco Bar Ashby Limited


To determine an application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of the above.


Representations have been received from Leicestershire Constabulary and one interested party.  A notice of hearing inviting them to attend has been sent to each of them.  If they fail to attend, the hearing can be held in their absence or adjourned.


The following documents are attached:-


a)    Report of the Licensing Enforcement Officer


At the beginning of the Hearing, the authority shall explain to the parties the procedure it is proposed to follow.  The Hearing shall take the form of a discussion led by the authority and cross-examination shall not be permitted unless it is required to consider the representations.

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced the parties and outlined 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 limit for each presentation be thirty minutes.


The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report to Members, highlighting the additional conditions detailed in the report that the applicant had proposed to meet all four licensing objectives.


There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.


Mr A Woods, Solicitor for the applicant addressed the Committee. He acknowledged that the applicant had submitted an application a year ago but it was refused due to lack of information contained within the application and, as such, the applicant had gone away and put together a new application that included all the information that was required. He explained that he had submitted the photographs late following the receipt of the CCTV to show the location of the premises in relation to the incidents that were shown on the footage to give members a better idea of the site. He highlighted the variations that were sought through the application and the proposed conditions that the applicant had submitted to support the application, which would hopefully, give confidence to the Members that they could grant the application knowing the policy would be met. He advised that in reviewing the information submitted, the applicant wished to change the first proposed condition in relation to re-entry, to no re-entry after 1.00am on Friday and Saturdays. He drew Members attention to the proposed conditions that related to adequate disposal of customers, door staff and training that would promote the licensing objectives. He felt the objection that had been received from Ciros was a trade dispute and he had submitted in the additional papers comments on the Police incident log and how the applicant dealt with them at the time, which they felt was in line with the conditions.


Mr A Woods informed Members that the applicant had tried to work with the Police in submitting the application and he was asked to submit a FOI request to the Police, in relation to the incidents, in the end three were submitted with no response. He questioned the evidence submitted by the Police as in one-the police stated 17 incidents and another 13 incidents, and felt that the applicant had addressed all the concerns over the Cumulative Impact Zone with the proposed conditions. He referred to the CCTV evidence and some of the incidents were after the premises had closed and felt that it was unfair to relate the incident to the premises and felt that the burger van and the location of the taxis drew people to the area. He stated that if the application was granted the applicant would be willing to fund two taxi marshals to assist with dispersal as it had worked well over the Christmas period. He advised that the applicant was seeking to keep the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.