Special circumstances justifying urgent consideration
A meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee has been convened as a result of an objection raised by the Police regarding a Temporary Event Notices (TENs). Section 105 (2)(a) (of the Licensing Act 2003 [part5]) requires a minimum of two days’ notice to be given. The event is due to take place on 7 January 2018.
The Chair is of the opinion that although the meeting has not been convened with at least five clear days’ notice, it should proceed now as a matter of urgency to consider the objections to the TEN because of the special circumstances of the need to comply with the statutory requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the Licensing team had been informed that the notice giver had not received the objection and was currently abroad. However, notification regarding the meeting had been sent to the notice giver’s representative. The Licensing Officer had also enquired how the notice giver would be able to be present at the event if he was abroad.
Presentation by the Licensing Officer
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an objection to a temporary event notice. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 7, 9 and 15 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.2 of the report on page 10 of the additional agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· The notice had been submitted by Mr Daniel Musse, the premises licence holder.
· This was an event to authorise the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment.
· The application could be found from pages 11-19 of the agenda papers.
· The event would take place from 00:00 until 04:00 on 7 January 2018.
· The objection received from the Police could be found on page 21 of the additional agenda papers.
· Paragraph 4.2 on page 9 of the additional agenda papers should read that the “premises had given two TENS in the year 2017” (not “18”).
Presentation by the objector
PC Farrely informed the Sub-Committee that:
· They had received notice regarding the 1 January 2018 and 7 January 2018 TENs.
· The Police wished to obtain further details of the events and sent an email to the premises licence holder on 18 December 2017 asking for further information but had not received a reply.
· It was not clear how people would be kept safe during the event.
· The Police wished to speak to the premises licence holder but as he had not made an effort to respond, the Police felt they had no choice but to object to the TEN.
· The Police visited the premises in early December 2017 and were able to obtain access to the premises easily and roam freely inside. They struggled to locate the management inside the premises.
· When they found a member of premises staff, Police asked about security logs and the staff member did not appear to be aware of them.
· The Police were concerned about the running of the premises.
· The Police had received no assurances from the premises licence holder.
In response to questions from Members, PC Farrely informed the Sub-Committee that:
· He had spoken to the notice-giver in the summer regarding another temporary event notice that had been submitted and had received assurances regarding the event.
· Sometimes when a TEN was submitted, it would be on behalf of another individual holding an event but this depended on the premises and the business it ran.
· The premises had a premises licence. The only other information received by the Police was that the event would feature refreshments, music and dance.
· There has been recent issues of disorder at the premises.
· Attached to TDA House was another premises called Lucy’s First. When disruption occurred in the area, the premises staff from the two premises blamed each other’s patrons for the disruption.
· Premises staff from Lucy’s First had been engaging and had called Police when there had been incidents of public disorder.
· Patrons from TDA House often tried to get into Lucy’s First but sometimes patrons from TDA House would be refused entry.
· When the Police last visited the area in early December 2017, they visited both TDA House and Lucy’s First. An incident had occurred whereby security from Lucy’s First had informed patrons from TDA House that they were not allowed entry to Lucy’s First. When the Police visited TDA House, premises staff there were not aware of the incident having occurred, what a security log was or had any familiarity with a dispersal policy.
· Had the premises licence holder got in touch with Police, then the Police would have asked that the event be held during policy hours or would have sought adequate assurances.
· The email communication from the Police was to the email address submitted in the application form on behalf of the notice giver and the number used to ring premises staff was the number found in the application.
Adjournment and Decision
At 8.18pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from PC Farrely.
Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to issue a counter notice.
RESOLVED: To issue a counter notice.
Announcement of Decision
Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to issue a counter notice for the following reasons:
The Sub-Committee having considered the evidence submitted by the Police was convinced that permitting the event to take place would undermine the crime and disorder and public nuisance strands of the licensing objective and therefore the Sub-Committee decided to issue a counter notice so that this event would not take place.