Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – Councillor Townsley was elected Chair for the meeting.

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 25 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 25, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals against the refusal of inspection of documents.

1)  To highlight reports or appendices which:

a)  officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

b)  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

c)  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of those parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information

2) To note that under the Licensing Procedure rules, the press and the public will be excluded from that part of the hearing where Members will deliberate on each application  as it is in the public interest to allow the Members to have a full and frank debate on the matter before them.

There were no resolutions to exclude the public.

To identify any applications as late items of business which have been admitted to the agenda for consideration

 (the special circumstances shall be identified in the minutes)

No formal late items of business were added to the agenda for the meeting. However in respect of Agenda item 6 (Minute No. 260 refers) the Sub Committee received supplementary Information which is referred to at Appendix D of the report.

Members are reminded to declare any interests at the start of the hearing on each application for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of conduct

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider the report of the Head of Licensing and Registration on an application received for the Review of the Premises Licence held at La Liga, Dick Lane, Thornbury, Bradford. The application has been made by West Yorkshire Police under the provisions of Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003

(Report attached)

The Sub – Committee considered a review of a premises licence held at the premises known as “La Liga”, Dick Lane, Thornbury, Bradford, BD3 7AT. The review was considered under the provisions of Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 following a request by West Yorkshire Police at the premises on 14^th March 2012. The Licensing Authority was therefore required to review the Premise Licence under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. Notices had been displayed at the premises advertising the review in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Present at the hearing:

• West Yorkshire Police – the applicant, represented by Mr Patterson, PC Dobson, Inspector Calkwell (WYP);
• Sergeant Rob Fulliove, PCSO Michael Cox, PC Chris Davy (observers);
• Leeds City Council (Entertainment Licensing Enforcement), represented by Paul Rix
• Robert Blackburn  ‘La Liga’ – Premise Licence Holder (PLH) represented by John Cordingly (Licensing Consultant);
• Simon Baker, Manager at ‘La Liga’; and
• Kevin Hainsworth – Joint Owner of ‘La Liga’

The Sub - Committee first considered representations from WYP who provided the background to events leading up to the placement of notices providing details of the review being placed on prominent display at the premises, the following was highlighted:

·  The premises have repeatedly come to the attention of West Yorkshire Police and there has been an element of underage drinking that was particularly worrying and had brought the matter to review earlier than might otherwise have been the case;

·  Three meetings have been held with the PLH but there has been no improvement to the position. Promises had been made at those meetings that have still not been fulfilled and the Police consider that they were no further forward at this time in resolving the problems than they had been in 2010 at the time of the first meeting;

·  Also raised by the Police were additional problems in relation to the absence or incorrect deployment of door staff. The Police put forward their beliefs that young people may also be concealing alcohol outside the premises and leaving the venue to drink and coming back in, which a better provision of door staff would help to address;

·  The Police particularly made reference to what they considered to be the dismissive attitude of the management in that parties for sixteenth and eighteenth birthdays had been continuing even after the owners of the premises told the staff to stop holding them, furthermore that there had been no attendance at Pubwatch;

·  The assault outlined in the papers at Agenda item 6, in August 2011, had been very serious. Further, the Halloween party in October 2011 featured underage individuals as both victims and perpetrators of assaults and there was clear evidence of the problems being alcohol related.  In the Police’s view, the management of the premises did not have a grip, resulting in police facing the baying mob of underage drinkers in January 2012. Inspector Calkwell highlighted that this took his police staff away from their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 260.