Agenda item

The Director of Environmental Services submits a report on an application for a new premises licence within a Cumulative Impact Zone, for Haycock & Tailbar Associates, 40-42 Belvoir Street, Leicester.

Report attached. A copy of the associated documentation is attached for Members only. Further copies are available on the Council’s website at www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk or by phoning Democratic Support on 454 6354.

The Director, Environmental Services, submitted a report that required Members to determine an application for a new premises licence within a Cumulative Impact Zone for Haycock & Tailbar Associates, 40-42 Belvoir Street, Leicester.

Members noted that a representation had been received in respect of the application, which necessitated that the application for a new premises licence had to be considered by Members.

The applicants, Mr Martin Stevens and Mr Sam Dale, and PC Tejas Mavani from Leicestershire Police who had made a representation were present. Also present was the Licensing Team Manager and Solicitor to the hearing panel.

The Licensing Team Manager presented the report. The meeting was informed that the Live Music Act 2012 was relevant due to the hours of operation requested. It was noted that the representation from Leicestershire Police was made on the ground of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The representation referred to the Local Policy on Cumulative Impact for the Belvoir Street Gate area, introduced by Leicester City Council in February 2011.

PC Mavani on behalf of the Police outlined the reasons for the representation and answered questions from Members:

·         The Council’s Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) policy was referred to in relation to the location of the premises.

·         The Police referred to the representation attached to the report.

·         The applicants ran a premises in Bowling Green Street and had a good working relationship with the Police.

·         The applicant had referred to the CIZ and was not alcohol led.

·         The Police were not asking for a refusal but asked that the additional conditions requested in the representation be considered.

·         The Police asked for a 3.00am closure to allow for dispersal of people, prior to other premises in the area closing at 4.00pm.

The applicants were then given the opportunity to respond to the points made:

·         Mr Stevens and Mr Dale were equal partners in the business.

·         They ran Hakamou in Bowling Green Street, and had a premises with the same name in Northampton. The applicants also ran a Haycock & Tailbar Associates premises in Northampton.

·         Big venues discounted their beverages heavily, but the applicants wanted a smaller premises, whose target was a mixed selection of customers. No trouble was anticipated, as it was believed younger people did not behave as badly when older people were around.

·         The new venue would be a mixed operation with seating and tables only, with no standing drinking allowed.

·         The applicants said the larger premises on Belvoir Street would have high rents, and turned their venues over to discos late at night to make money.

·         The Haycock & Tailbar Associates premises opened in Northampton under a block of flats. Initially residents had made representations as they were concerned with the impact a bar would have on their lives. Residents had been pleased the premises had not had an impact on them, and were now customers of the bar.

·         The premises was not alcohol or food led, but experience led.

·         The venue offered an alternative for well-dressed people who were not quite ready to go home, but did not want to visit a venue with loud music.

·         Food would be served throughout the evening, and would cater for customers who wanted to eat late in the evening. It was hoped that eventually people would be directed to the premises for food.

·         The applicants were not interested in running an unruly premises, and issues would be addressed by the conditions outlined in the report at Appendix C.

·         Free water would be provided, and would have a calming effect. The focus was on refreshment.

·         The theatre facing the premises in Northampton had stated the bar had a positive effect on the area.

·         It was not anticipated the restaurant would require the use of SIA registered door staff, unless an assessment required the use of such staff. The condition in the licence would be replaced with the model condition in the Council’s Licensing Policy regarding the use of SIA door staff.

·         The applicants were happy to operate a Challenge 25 policy.

·         The applicants believed that 9.30pm was late enough for children to be allowed on the premises, due to the environment outside of the premises. They believed children should be away from the area by 9.30pm.

·         The closure time would allow for people to finish their food and drink, and would allow for taxis to arrive.

All parties were then given the opportunity to sum up their positions and make any final comments.

Prior to deliberation, the Solicitor to the hearing panel advised members of options available to them in making their decision. Members were also advised of the relevant policy and statutory guidance that needed to be taken into account when making their decisions.

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.

The Licensing Team Manager, the Solicitor to the hearing panel, Mr Stevens, Mr Dale, PC Mavani, and persons in the public gallery then withdrew from the meeting.

Members gave the application full and detailed consideration.

The Licensing Team Manager, the Solicitor to the hearing panel, Mr Stevens, Mr Dale, PC Mavani, and persons in the public gallery then returned to the meeting.

RESOLVED:

that the application for a new premises licence within a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) be granted.

The Committee made the decision to grant the licence subject to conditions in the operating schedule, and those offered by Leicestershire Police, subject to the following amendments:

Conditions Consistent with the Operating Schedule

Amendment regarding the use of SIA staff to read:

‘The Licensee will employ sufficient registered door staff to deal with any likely contingency.’

Amendment to the Challenge 21 policy to read:

‘The licence holder will ensure a Challenge 25 policy is adopted at the premises.’

The Committee said that although the premises was in a CIZ, they were satisfied the premises would not contribute to the issue of saturation due to the nature of the operation of the business, and would not affect the licensing objectives of the Prevention of Public Nuisance, and the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.