Agenda and minutes

To seek nominations for the election for the position of Chair.

RESOLVED – That Councillor J Gibson be elected as Chair for the hearings.

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 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 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance and Scrutiny Support at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals.

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 was no exempt information on the Agenda.

There were no late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any interests in accordance with Leeds City Council’s ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’.

There were no declarations.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory presented an application to vary a Premises Licence held by Club Atomic, 156 Briggate, Leeds, LS1 6LY.

The application was to vary the existing hours of operation as follows:

Sale by retail of alcohol:

Monday to Saturday  11:30 to 02:30

Sunday  08:00 to 02:30

Performance of recorded music:

Monday to Saturday  11:30 to 03:00

Sunday  08:00 to 03:00

The premises are based in the red zone of the cumulative impact area and representations to the application had been submitted by West Yorkshire Police, the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Protection Team.

The following were in attendance:

-  Ryan Mellor Davis, Director, Atomic Business Ltd

-  Richard Jones, Director, Atomic Business Ltd

-  PC Andrew Clifford, West Yorkshire Police

-  Susan Duckworth, Licensing Authority

-  Vanessa Holroyd, Environmental Protection Team

The applicants were invited to address the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  The applicants had operated at other premises until 03:00 without any issues.

·  These premises had previously had a licence until 03:00.

·  The applicants had a good track record and endeavoured to meet the four licensing objectives.

·  The applicants were aware of the red zone and cumulative impact policy and that this should not be grounds for automatically rejecting the application.

·  The additional hours were necessary for the applicant to continue trading and provide a viable business.

The West Yorkshire Police representative addressed the Sub-Committee.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  All applications that fell within the red zone of the Cumulative Impact Area were judged on their own merits.

·  The Cumulative Impact Zone was not premises specific but due to the high concentration of licensed premises in one area.  There were no poor operators within the red zone and problems were due to the high footfall in the area.

·  The postcode area of the premises had seen 92 calls to the police since January of which 62 were made after 11.00 p.m.  All had related to drink, theft and public order offences and virtually all were linked to licensed premises.

The Entertainment Licensing Officer addressed the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  The area had the highest number of alcohol related crimes within the city.

·  The previous licence holder had been granted a temporary licence until 3.00 a.m.  This was to support the business during the pandemic when capacity was reduced due to regulations that were in place. It was considered that there was no impact due to reduced capacity.

·  The premises was a nightclub style operation and not the preferred style of new premises for the cumulative impact area.  Applications for a food led style of operation would be welcomed.

·  It was recommended that the application be refused.

The Environmental Protection representative addressed the sub-committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  There were flats to the rear of the premises and a new student accommodation development.  Even if noise from within the premises could be contained, the disturbance from people congregating outside would cause complaints and these would be difficult to deal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory.

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory presented an application for the grant of a Premises Licence for Wendy’s, 88-91 Briggate, Leeds, LS1 6NP.

The application was for the provision of late night refreshment every day from 23:00 to 03:00.

The application had attracted a representation from a member of the public who was opposed to the application on the grounds of public safety, public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

The following were in attendance:

·  SoterisPapacaoullas, Director, Square Burgers Ltd - Applicant

·  Costantino Papadamou, Director, Square Burgers Ltd – Applicant

·  George Papadamou, Director, Square Burgers Ltd - Applicant

·  Bradley Cowley – Square Burgers Ltd – Applicant

·  Sean, Founder, McKickz Ltd – Objector

Prior to the start of the hearing, the objector requested an adjournment.  He had wanted to submit photographic and video evidence which highlighted the kinds of anti-social behaviour that had occurred but this still required editing for data protection requirements.  The Sub-Committee did not feel an adjournment was appropriate and informed the objector that he could give further information when making his representations.

The applicant was invited to address the Sub-Committee. The following was highlighted:

·  There were lots of takeaways and bars nearby and this application would not be out of the ordinary for that part of the city.

·  There was no evidence that this application would contribute to the existing problems in the area.

·  There had not been any police objections to the application.

·  There would be 24/7 CCTV operation and security staff employed during late night opening.

·  There would not be the sale of alcohol and it was felt this would give customers an opportunity to sober up and reduce the risk of any disorder.

·  There would be patrols and litter collection in the surrounding area.

·  There would be a team of between 40 to 60 employed at the premises and all would receive full training and have career prospects.

·  The concerns with regards to anti-social behaviour were understood.

·  There had not been objections from other neighbouring businesses.

·  There were other premises that operated for 24 hours and it was felt that the applicant would provide a better operation than others.

·  Door staff would be employed from 23:00 until closing.

The objector was invited to address the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  The objector had a shop premises near to the applicant and had issues relating to anti-social behaviour from other late night premises.

·  The applicant’s premises would attract intoxicated people and there had been problems with people urinating and taking drugs round the back of the objector’s premises.  It would also attract homeless people and other drug users who were begging.

·  The premises would need to have a toilet.

·  The objector’s premises had a glass frontage and windows had been smashed.  Other nearby premises had also been damaged and had problems due to anti-social behaviour.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, discussion included the following:

·  The objector had concerns that friends of people attending  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.