Agenda and minutes

  RESOLVED - Councillor B Selby was elected Chair of the meeting

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, however the Sub Committee and all parties were in receipt of the following supplementary documentation which had been submitted after the despatch of the agenda for the meeting and issued all parties prior to the hearing:

• Additional bundle supplied by the applicant’s solicitor including
  • A statement outlining the other premises operated by the applicant; history of this premises licence application, liaison and agreements with the responsible authorities
  • Magazine reviews of Reform and Verve bars operated by the applicant
  • Menu from Verve bar
  • “Worlds Best Bar” listings showing Reform (23) and Verve (61)
  • “Scores on the Doors” listings for Reform and 3 bars operated by objectors to the application
  • Copies of the Premises Licences for Verve and Reform
• Additional bundle supplied by the solicitor for some of the objectors to the application which included:
  • Copy of LCC Public Consultation Report of the Statement of Licensing Police 2011-13
  • Copy of the High Court Judgement JD Wetherspoon vs. Guildford Borough Council
  • Copy of the High Court Judgement: Luminar Leisure Ltd vs. Wakefield Magistrates Court

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

To consider the report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) on an application received for a grant of a Premises Licence in respect of the premises situated at 38 Call Lane, Leeds LS1.

(Report attached)

The Sub-Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance, considered the application and the written submissions before them relating to an application for the grant of a new Premises Licence in respect of premises to be known as “Call Lane” 38 Call Lane, Leeds LS1 6DT.

The report included the representations initially submitted by West Yorkshire Police (WYP) and LCC Environmental Protection Team (LCC EPT) however it was noted that agreements had been reached between the applicant and the responsible authorities and the representations had been withdrawn.

Representations had also been submitted by the following local residents: Mr F Stride; Mr T Davies & Ms S Watson; Ms A Harding; Mr C Burton; Mr O Lowe and Mr B Cook. None of the local residents attended the hearing and the Sub Committee resolved to proceed with the hearing and consider the residents written representations in their absence.

Written submissions had also been received from representatives of local businesses including Mr N Coughlan (Norman Restaurant & Bar);  and by Mr C Rees-Gay the solicitor acting on behalf of Norman Restaurant & Bar; Boutique Partnership; Neon Cactus; Jakes Bar & Grill  and Oporto. Mr Rees-Gay also submitted colour copies of maps already within one of his written submissions for ease of reference.

Attendees

Prior to the start of the hearing Mr Anderson made a request to withdraw Paragraph 2 of Page 5 of the written statement submitted by his colleague, Mr N Walton on behalf of the applicant, as it did not accurately reflect the stance of West Yorkshire Police. The Sub Committee agreed to this request.

The Sub Committee heard first from Mr C Rees-Gay on behalf of operators of other venues within the Call Lane locality of Leeds who had made representations.

Mr Rees-Gay referred the Sub Committee to those parts of the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy which he believed to be most relevant to this application. He highlighted the crime and disorder statistics contained within the proposed revised Policy which showed the locality as being a hotspot area for incidents of anti social behaviour and assaults during the night.  Mr Rees-Gay also relied upon the introduction of street marshals in that area as further evidence that this locality already suffered from incidents of crime and disorder.

Mr Rees-Gay then addressed the two High Court judgements he had submitted for consideration and explained their relevance to this application in terms of parties making representation and the impact of increased numbers of patrons and licensable hours in a defined area. Mr Rees-Gay also stated his belief that the applicant had not submitted enough evidence to prove that they could address the licensing objectives and he urged the Sub Committee to refuse the application

The Sub Committee invited PC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.