Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) on an application for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of premises at 90 Kirkgate, Leeds LS2 trading as Re-Set

(Report attached)

The Sub-Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance, considered the written submissions before them relating to an application for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of premises trading as “Re-Set”, 90 Kirkgate, Leeds LS2

Representations had been submitted by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), LCC Department of Development and by LCC Environmental Protection Team (LCC EPT), all of whom were represented at the hearing.

The Sub Committee noted that this premise was located within Area 1 (city centre) of the Cumulative Impact Policy and that the Policy did apply to this premises as the applicant proposed to provide late refreshment for customers to take away. The Sub Committee noted the plan accompanying the application showed very limited seating for patrons within the premises which supported their view that the business would be a take away. Members therefore took the view that it was for the applicant to satisfy them that he was able to operate this premises in that area, without contributing to the already established cumulative impact of other licensed premises. 

The Sub Committee first heard submissions from Mr B Patterson and PC C Arkle on behalf of WYP who provided evidence that the current operation of the premises was already undermining the crime prevention objective. They were accompanied by Mr P Geary, a landlord of other premises in the locality, who gave details of incidents he associated with the premises including:

·  youths congregating around the premises caused vandalism, disorder and anti-social behaviour.

·  the premises were used for drugs

·  Cannabis use occurred in the upstairs rooms of the premises and the smell of the cannabis was such that it permeated into the adjoining property, of which Mr Geary was the landlord

·  graffiti and damage to the car park to the rear of the premises.

·  needles found to the rear of the premises.

The Sub Committee then heard from Mr C Sanderson on behalf of LCC Department of Development who stated the premises were currently operating without the benefit of planning permission. Additionally he identified the premises as undermining the public nuisance objective due to the congregation of youths in and around the premises. 

The Sub Committee then heard from Mr R Bilsborough on behalf of LCC EPT who stated his view that the current operation of the premises already undermined the public nuisance objective as customers congregating in and around the premises was a source of disturbance. Noise currently emanating from the premises affected residents nearby and he described the nearest residents as being 10 metres across the road. He also reported receipt of a complaint in August 2010 of noise from rowdy customers and loud music from the premises.  Furthermore he was aware of alleged incidents of smoking taking place within the premises contrary to smoking legislation and this matter had been referred to the relevant Health & Safety team. Mr Bilsborough concluded that the grant of the Licence as applied for would exacerbate the problems already identified in the area. He added that if Members were minded to grant, he would urge them to impose a terminal hour of 00:00 midnight.

The Sub Committee then heard from the Mr M Altoni, the applicant who addressed the planning matters in the first instance and stated he was willing to submit a planning application in order to regularise the planning situation.

Mr Altoni then addressed the matters raised in the submissions and began by stating the car park to the rear was not under his management and that the misuse of the alleyway was not solely due to patrons of his business. He also denied the drug related allegations against his premises and stated that no drugs had ever been found at his premises.  He highlighted his previous co-operation with WYP when he had provided CCTV recordings to assist with the identification of suspects involved in activity not related to his premises.

Mr Altoni did accept that loud music had been played at the premises, however following receipt of the complaint he had instructed his staff not to play loud music and he had visited neighbours across the road to assure them that there would be no repeat of this incident.

With regards to the rubbish within the alleyway, Mr Altoni explained the premises had been refurbished and he agreed that materials had been left in the shared alleyway his premises shared. He also stated the upstairs of the premises was no longer being used. 

To conclude, Kr Altoni offered to amend the hours of operation he had requested in order to address the problems raised in the representations to

Monday & Tuesday   to close at 23:00 hours

Wednesday & Thursday to close at 02.00 hours

Friday & Saturday to close at 03:00 hours

The Sub Committee carefully considered the written submissions included within the report and the verbal submissions made at the hearing. The Sub Committee was satisfied that the premises as currently operated already seriously undermined the licensing objectives particularly with regard to public nuisance and the prevention of crime & disorder, and even with the amended hours offered by the applicant, granting the application would continue to undermine the licensing objectives

Members were therefore not persuaded that the applicant could demonstrate a reason to set aside the CIP; given the existing problems linked to the premises and the management style currently in operation.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused