Agenda item

To consider the report of the Head of Licensing and registration on an application for the grant of a Premises Licence for Beat Bar, 66 Merrion Street, Leeds LS2. The premises are located within an area covered by the Cumulative Impact Policy Area 1.

(Report attached)

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 a new premises licence for premises to be known as Beat Bar, 66 Merrion Street, Leeds LS2. The premises were located within Cumulative Impact Area 1 and had previously operated as a nightclub.

Measures proposed by LCC Health & Safety Team to address the public safety licensing objective had been agreed by the applicant and LCC H&S had withdrawn the representation on the understanding the measures would be included as conditions on the premises licence should this application be granted. Representations had also been submitted by LCC Environmental Protection Team (LCC EPT) and West Yorkshire Police (WYP). The following were present at the hearing:

Mr G Rathore described the intended style of operation of the premises as a daytime venue for dance/music classes and nightclub during the evening/early morning. Mr Rathore outlined his licensing and project management experience; the reasoning behind the request for a 24 hour premises licence and addressed the measures proposed by LCC EPT. He explained the premises lay within the basement areas of the Merrion Centre and had operated prior to the introduction of the CIP without complaint. He explained that staff would usher patrons to the taxi ranks on Briggate to discourage people from congregating and reduce noise impact on residents of the adjacent hotel. Mr G Rathore added that the premises were not within the main hotspots for crime and disorder in the city centre and that 4 licensed premises in the immediate locality had closed during the last 18 months and therefore suggested that the opening of Beat Bar would not add to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the area.

Discussions followed on the number of other licensed premises open during the early morning in the city centre noting that there were no other similar premises licensed for 24 hours.

The Sub Committee then heard from WYP. Mr B Patterson acknowledged that other premises were licensed to open until 06:00 or 08:00 hours but that most of these did not operate until the time permitted by their licence and certainly not every day. PC C Arkle commented that the mix of nightclub, functions venue and dance class venue presented a confused proposition and she was concerned that the different uses would conflict with each other. PC Arkle suggested that the measures proposed by the applicant to address the four licensing objectives were inadequate for a city centre premises. She was also concerned Mr G Rathore had no experience of managing a city centre premises and this was evidenced by the suggestion that his staff would usher patrons to use the Briggate taxi ranks – as Briggate was one of the city centre crime hotspots. PC Arkle concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the operation of this premises would not add to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in this locality

Mr B Kenny, LCC EPT, then explained the potential for public nuisance to be generated through the operation of this venue with patrons leaving the venue and causing noise and disruption throughout the city. A hotel was nearby and major pedestrian routes out of the city centre cut through residential areas.

Mr G Rathore then addressed the Sub Committee with regards to the comments made by the responsible authorities. He stated that he had expected to be represented by a legal representative today and that he had now completed a risk assessment setting out measures he proposed to implement at the premises. The Sub Committee considered whether, in the light of this information, the application could be stood down to allow time for the risk assessment to be considered. The Sub Committee advised the applicant that an adjournment could allow time to secure the services of a legal representative. Mr Rathore stated his preference to continue the hearing.

The Sub Committee carefully considered the representations made by the applicant and the responsible authorities and noted the premises lay within Cumulative Impact Area 1. The Sub Committee shared the same concerns as the responsible authorities and did not feel the applicant demonstrated that this application would not have a detrimental impact on the cumulative effect of licensed premises in the area

RESOLVED – To refuse the application