The Director for Neighbourhoods and Environmental Services submits a report for a variation of an existing premises license for Sophy, 8-10 King Street, Leicester.
Minutes:
Councillor Pickering, as Chair welcomed all to the Committee and outlined the proceedings of the hearing.
The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report
on an application made under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003, for a variation of the existing premises licence at 8-10 King Street, Leicester.
Mr Dhillon Kumar and Mr Jai Dhillon Kumar were in attendance. Also present was PC Pritchard from Leicestershire Police, the Licensing Team Manager (Policy and Applications) and the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee.
The Licensing Team Manager (Policy and Applications) presented the report and outlined details of the application.
PC Pritchard was given the opportunity to outline the details of the representation from the Police and answered questions from Members of the Sub-Committee.
Mr Jai Dhillon Kumar was given the opportunity to address the Sub-Committee and answered questions from the Members.
All parties present, were then given the opportunity to sum up their positions
and make any final comments.
The Sub-Committee received legal advice from the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee in the presence of all those present and were advised of the options
available to them in making their decision. The Sub-Committee were also advised of the relevant policy and statutory guidance that needed to be taken into account when making their decision.
In reaching their decision, Members felt they should deliberate in private on the
basis that this was in the public interest, and as such outweighed the public interest of their deliberation taking place with the parties represented present, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
The Chair announced that the decision and reasons would be announced in writing within five working days. The Chair informed the meeting that the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee would be called back to give advice on the wording of the decision.
The Chair then informed the meeting that all but the Democratic Support Officers should withdraw from the room. The Sub-Committee then deliberated
in private to consider their decision.
In reviewing the Premises Licence the Sub-Committee considered the Licensing Officer’s Report and all the representations, both written and oral. The Sub-Committee took account of the Statutory Guidance, the Regulators’ Code, and the Council’s Licensing Policy.
The Sub-Committee recalled the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee to give advice on the wording of the decision.
RESOLVED:
That the application to vary the premises licence be REJECTED
In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee Members have carefully considered the Committee report presented by the Licensing Team Manager (Policy and Applications) and the representations made both by the applicant and the objector Leicestershire Police. The members also considered legal advice given to them during the hearing.
The Sub-Committee Members considered the licensing objectives to be of paramount concern and had considered the application on its own merits and in accordance with the licensing authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.
Section 35 of the Licensing Act 2003 sets out the steps a Licensing Authority must take to determine an application to vary where relevant representations are received. The steps include:
· Hold a hearing to consider the representations and
· Having regard to the representations take such steps (if any) as it considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives
The sub-committee considered the application on its own merits and determined the application in its own right.
Reasons:
Members recognised the steps taken by the Premises Licence holder to reduce the number of incidents by employing a new security team and by taking practical measures to reduce flashpoints however members concluded that by failing to take practical steps to comply with the six agreed conditions, the applicant had failed to promote the licensing objectives.
The six conditions were aimed at promoting the licensing objectives particularly that relating to the prevention of crime and disorder and members expected the premises licence holder to have taken each of these steps regardless of the outcome of the application. Each of the six conditions put forward were ones that the members would expect a responsible premise to implement. Given the history of the premises and in light of the CCTV evidence relating to crime and disorder, members concluded that the variation if granted would as Leicestershire Police submitted, lead to an increase in incidents of crime and disorder.
Members concluded that the Premises holder’s representations before them did not acknowledge the seriousness of the incidents relied upon by Leicestershire Police and the premises licence holder failed in his representations to demonstrate a willingness to promote the licensing objectives.
Supporting documents: