To receive a verbal presentation from West Yorkshire Police providing an update on activity in Leeds City Centre and a briefing on city centre policing in the night time economy
Minutes:
The Committee welcomed Chief Inspector V Francis, PC C Arkle and Mr B Patterson of West Yorkshire Police to the meeting. Ch.Ins. Francis led the Committee in discussions on the following matters:
Gatecrasher Review
– Issues relating to the volume of paperwork associated with the applications before Sub Committees, the procedure followed at the Magistrates Court, the strength and presentation of the representations made by WYP and the approach of the Judge were raised.
– WYP stated their intention to re-assess and condense wherever possible the paperwork associated with an application. Careful consideration would also be given to the choice of legal representative and the order of business and procedure likely to be adopted by the Magistrates Court.
(Councillor A Khan withdrew from the meeting for a short while at this point)
– Members recalled the circumstances of the case and considered whether the presence of a Sub Committee Member at the Magistrates court hearing would assist
– Overall both WYP and the Licensing Authority agreed it would be beneficial if both parties assessed the strength of their case and sought the best possible representation at hearings, in terms of paperwork, support and legal representation in order to present a robust approach to the Court
(Councillor R Downes withdrew from the meeting at this point)
Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP)
Ch.Ins Vernon referred to the documents tabled showing the number of Licensing Act 2003 applications made for premises within the city centre (CIP Area 1) since January 2011, the type of representation made by WYP and the outcome of subsequent hearings.
(Councillor Downes rejoined the meeting)
– Members noted the amended Statement of Licensing Policy had come into force in January 2011 and CIP Area 1 stated a presumption against the grant of any new licence with that area. WYP asserted that an applicant should therefore be required to prove the exceptional reasons to grant their application rather than the onus being on WYP to make the case to uphold the CIP
– Ch.Ins Francis highlighted the outcomes of the applications considered by a sub committee since January 2011 with particular reference to those which lay within the three hotspots for incidents of crime and disorder identified by WYP. He stated WYP would encourage new premises coming forward with measures and styles of operation which would have a positive impact on a hotspot area and reduce the number of incidents. New premises or variations which did not appear to assist a locality already regarded as a hotspot would attract a strong objection from WYP
The Committee considered the outcomes and what additional information could be required by a sub committee in order to support the CIP. Members noted that receipt of a WYP representation should act as a trigger for them to consider the CIP and identify what evidence was submitted to convince them that an application was exceptional. Members acknowledged that there may appear to be inconsistencies in the approach of the Sub Committees and identified the following issues:
– That a strong barrister/applicant could divert consideration of the presumption against granting applications stated in the CIP
– That Members may benefit from monthly/quarterly updates on the outcomes of CIP area applications and sharing “best practice” on dealing with CIP applications
– That the Licensing Authority could benefit from establishing a sub committee to deal purely with CIP applications as and when required
– The different approaches demonstrated by WYP with regards to representations made to applications for premises within CIP Area 1 and applications for premises within hotspot areas in CIP Area 1. Members noted that WYP intended to reassess the style of representations
– The benefits of the CIP as a deterrent to prospective applicants seeking long hours and large capacity venues
– The need for the Entertainment Licensing Section to liaise closely with the Department of Development over the possible impact of CIP Area 1 on future developments in the city centre – such as the Eastgate and Harewood Quarter. Members noted the Arena development lay just outside CIP Area 1 and that in developing the current policy consultation had been held with the Development Department. Furthermore a report from the Development Department was scheduled for the October Committee meeting
– PC Arkle briefly outlined the Matrix points system used to identify city premises which needed support from WYP. Ch.Ins. Francis explained his decision making process in seeking to review a premises licence had regard to the type of venue, capacity, nature of entertainment offer, clientele and whether that venue consistently worked with WYP.
The Committee thanked the officers of WYP for their presentation and welcomed the discussions it had generated
RESOLVED –
a) To note the contents of the presentation and discussions
b) To request officers report back following further consideration of
i) the benefit of monthly/quarterly updates on the outcomes of CIP area applications and sharing “best practice” on dealing with CIP applications and
ii) the benefits of establishing a sub committee to deal purely with CIP applications as and when required