Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – Councillor Downes 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. 11 refers), the Sub Committee received supplementary documents submitted by the applicant in support of the application which included photographs and plans of the venue.

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 made.

Apologies for absence were received form Cllr Armitage. Cllr P Latty was in attendance as substitute for Cllr Armitage, due to her not being informed until the morning of the meeting the meeting was delayed until 11:15am for her arrival.

To consider the report of the Head of Licensing and Registration on an application for the grant of a premise licence for Chao Phraya, Blayds Court, 20 Swinegate, Leeds, LS1

The Sub – Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy considered an application for the grant of premises licence for Chao Phraya, Blayds Court, 20 Swinegate, Leeds, LS1 4AG.

A representation had been received from West Yorkshire Police.

The following were present at the hearing:

Mr Ian Lee – the applicant

Mr James Staton – Solicitor for the applicant

Sergeant Fullilove – West Yorkshire Police (WYP)

Cath Sanderson – WYP - observer

The Sub Committee heard representations from Mr Staton. Who outlined the application including the number of covers on all floors of the premises and described the nature of the business and its background. Mr Staton stressed that the business is food led and not alcohol led and that the restaurant was a high quality establishment which will be further renovated.

Mr Staton addressed Police concerns with regards to the provision of CCTV and the prompt availability of recordings made, informing the Sub Committee that a new CCTV system is due to be installed as apart of the proposed renovations and that the applicant was happy to work with the Police.

Mr Staton also went on to highlight that although the premises fell within the Cumulative Impact area they would have a minimal impact upon it due to being located in a quieter part of the City Centre and the restaurant being a food led venue of high quality. It was also highlighted that there had been no incidents for several years.

Sergeant Fullilove then addressed the Sub Committee and outlined his concerns with regards to the application. He informed the Sub Committee that the premises were within the Cumulative Impact area but that there had been only one reported crime within the last three years . The restaurant borders an area patrolled by the British Transport Police and Seargent Fullilove did not have access to the British Transport Police records. However there had been no contact from the British Transport Police and it was suggested that they would have contacted Sergeant Fullilove if they had concerns about crime in the area.

Sergeant Fullilove went on to submit that although the premises were currently occupied by a ‘premium’ restaurant, that this might not always be the case and the restaurant could move on or be sold to a different company. Therefore any application needed to be carefully considered to guard against future crime and disorder.

Finally Sergeant Fulliove highlighted that the conditions relating to CCTV provision at the premises needed to be amended in order to help contribute to the need for speedy justice.

The applicant’s solicitor Mr Staton went on to sum up. He re-iterated that the CCTV system will be upgraded and that the applicant was willing to accept the suggestions made by the police in relation to the availability of CCTV footage. The Sub Committee were informed that there was no intention to change the style of the premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.