Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report for an application for a review of an existing premises licence for Glassy Club, Green Lane Road, Leicester, LE5 3TH.

Councillor Pickering, as Chair led on introductions and outlined the procedure the hearing would follow.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report for an application for a review of an existing premises licence for Glassy Club, Green Lane Road, Leicester, LE5 3TH.

Mr Luis Fonseca attended the hearing on behalf of Mr Praveshkumar Macan, the Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor. Mr Macan had emailed on 2^nd July 2026 informing the council that he was out of the country and that his acquaintance Mr Fonseca would be attending on his behalf. Mrs Sophie Smith, Ms Vicky Finn and Mr Simon Headley from the Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service were also present. Also in attendance were the Senior Licensing Officer and the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee. Ms Caitlin James, reporter, attended the meeting as an observer.

At the beginning of the hearing, Members of the Sub-Committee declared that they knew Mr Fonseca who had been a councillor until 2023 and that during his term of office, Mr Fonseca had served on the Licensing Sub-Committee.

The Senior Licensing Officer presented the report and outlined details of the application.

Mrs Smith, Fire Protection Officer from Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, was given the opportunity to outline the details of their review application and answered questions from Members.

Mr Fonseca 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 this 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 Sub-Committee recalled the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee to give advice on the wording of the decision.

RESOLVED:

The Committee considered the representations made by both parties and determined that the Licensing objective relating to Public Safety had been undermined and although works towards compliance of the Enforcement Notice were under way it was nevertheless appropriate and proportionate to REVOKE the licence.

REASONS

1.    The Committee were very concerned about the lack of fire safety at the premises and the risks that posed to user and vulnerable families living in the flats above the premises.

2.    The cause or causes of the concerns identified by the representations was the absence of the Premises Licence holder and DPS who had been abroad since 2024 leaving a management vacuum with no individual responsible or authorised to carry out licensable activities and promote the licensing objectives.

3.    In the absence of a proper authorised management structure, the committee had no confidence in the licensing objectives being promoted. Even if the works were completed by 11th August the committee could not be confident that fire safety procedures and maintenance would be followed and risks to the safety of users of the premises and others would remain.

4.    In the representations made by the Mr Macan and Mr Fonseca, several persons were mentioned as running and managing the premises. The Fire Service and Licensing Enforcement were also given names which contradicted the information given. The Fire Risk Assessment dated 18th June named a Mr Singh as being the Premises licence holder and a Mr Sawan as being the Responsible person. The committee determined that the licensing objective relating to Public Safety could not be promoted by an absent licence holder who had failed to make arrangements to comply with his duties or appoint individuals acting within the Licensing Act 2003 who could discharge those duties.

5.    The committee did consider whether a suspension of the Premises Licence was appropriate however given the absence of the Premises Licence holder and the points raised above, members had no confidence in the licence objectives being promoted and the risks to public safety merited a revocation.

Any appeal against the decision must be made within 21 days to the Magistrates Court.