Agenda item

Tia Maria, 126 South Lambeth Road, London, SW8 1RB (Oval)


Presentation by the Licensing Officer


The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an objection to a temporary event notice (TEN). The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 7, 9 and 15 of the Statutory Guidance and Sections 5, 5.11, 5.20 and 5.27 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 6.1 of the report on page 8 of the additional agenda papers.


The Licensing Officer confirmed:


·      The notice had been given by Mr Eduardo Dantas.

·      The Police objected to the notice and PC Hannah Eldridge was in attendance.

·      The TEN requested regulated entertainment, late night refreshment and sale of alcohol for the following days:

·      Saturday 2 March 2019 between 00:00 and 03:00.

·      Sunday 3 March 2019 between 00:00 and 03:00

·      Monday 4 March between 00:00 and 01:00. 

·      The notice giver had been the DPS at the premises since October 2010 and the premises license holder since 23 August 2011.


Presentation by the objector


PC Hannah Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      The Police had objected to the application due to incidents that had occurred at the premises.

·      One incident was an assault on the London Ambulance Service paramedic. This assault was committed by an individual feigning unconsciousness before assaulting the service person for doing their job. In order to get to the unconscious person, the paramedic had to make their way through a large crowd. He was on his own and had called the Police to ask for assistance in order to get to the unconscious male.

·      The individuals in the area were patrons attending Tia Maria.

·      The Police only had approximately 30-36 Police officers in total at their disposal for the whole borough.

·      It was unacceptable for these incidents to occur.

·      Other three incidents were rooted in intoxication, including a domestic incident. The two parties involved did not make allegations. Police had spoken to security who had refused to give statements.  The premises licence holder was not upholding the Licensing Act. Police asked to view CCTV and the officer was unable to gain access to it. This was a breach of condition 5. 

In response to questions from Members, PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      There were two amendments that needed to be made in relation to the representation. Firstly, the objections were made on 8 December 2018 and the date that read ‘18/6/19’ should read ‘18/6/18’.

·      Regarding the incident on 27/10/18, which was a domestic incident, a female patron had stated that her partner was drunk.

·      On 18 June 2018, two individuals had attended the premises, got into an argument which later escalated outside. One officer had spoken to the manager, who would know how to access to the CCTV cameras and the officer was told that it could not be accessed.


Presentation by the notice giver


The notice giver, Mr Eduardo Dantas, DPS and the premises licence holder, informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      He was present during the incident on 18 June 2018. At the time attempts were made to access the CCTV footage from a laptop. This was taking time and the officer was understanding. The Police wanted to solve the issue outside the premises and there were still patrons inside. The Police decided to not access the CCTV cameras, attend to the situation and request the footage another time.

·      He had been running the premises for a long time.

·      The premises made full use of all TENs it was allowed.

·      There had been occurrences where the premises had to involve Police, but none of these occurrences were when the premises had held a temporary event.

·      In the last 6 years, the premises had been promoted as a Brazilian venue and had given TENs dozens of times, but this was the first time the premises had received an objection from the Police. 

·      Since the incidents that had occurred in the previous year involving violence, more door staff (two instead of three) had been introduced and communication amongst staff and other promoters in London who promoted Brazilian nights. This had helped calm things.

·      Since December 2018, the premises had been working on its security measures.

·      Updated CCTV had been installed at the premises in the last six months. The premises had two large hard drives and CCTV footage would be made available for anyone who requested it.

·      He had a representative from the security company but was running late to the meeting.

·      The premises was working with a good security company which was doing its best to instruct staff in relation to controlling events occurring at the premises.

·      Premises staff were working hard to uphold the licensing objectives.

·      The premises did not serve drunk people.



In response to questions from Members, Mr Dantas informed the Sub-Committee that:


·      Since the incident in June 2018, there had been no phone calls or emails from the Police. 

·      He could not see why premises staff would have refused to give their version of what had occurred.

·      If anyone appeared to be intoxicated, they would not be served. 

·      Staff had been informed to cooperate with the Police.

·      Additional door staff had been in place since October 2018.

·      Four additional door staff would be employed on Friday and Saturday (and on Sunday until 01:00).

·      During the incident on 8 December 2018, he went to assist the paramedic with the assistance of one of his door staff. He did not see any violent behaviour, all the people in the area wanted to help.

·      People were on the phone receiving instructions on how to help. Coats were taken from the bouncer which were used to wrap around the victim, who was understood to have a history of seizures. Apparently, it happened frequently.

·      There were still five staff members who wanted to assist after further paramedics arrived.

·      Security moved people out of the way so that air could flow to the person to help them recover. 

·      The individual that appeared to have been passed out was a patron of the premises. He would not have been served high quantities of alcohol by staff. It was more likely that he would have got drunk through friends having brought drinks for him. 

·      Security often tried to inform each other about issues occurring at the premises, including identifying individuals who should not be served. 


Adjournment and Decision


At 7.35pm, 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 all those who spoke. 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 not to issue a counter notice but apply the conditions of the licence.


RESOLVED: To not issue a counter notice but apply the conditions of the licence.


Announcement of Decision


Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to not issue a counter notice but apply the conditions of the licence. All of the conditions in the premises licence needed to be kept whilst the temporary event was in operation. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that whilst there were concerns regarding how the security outside the premises was maintained, it was satisfied that the existing conditions provided a framework to counter this concern including the employment of additional security staff and the improved training that would alleviate some of the concerns raised. Although many serious incidents had been recorded at the premises. Should there be a breach of the conditions of the licence during the temporary event, the Police should consider submitting a review application as the Sub-Committee may need to alter the terms of the premises licence in a more overall sense. The incidents occurring at the premises did not relate to the temporary events held at the premises. However, the app should take this temporary event seriously regarding the security procedures so the applicant was able to deal with the problems as they arose. In the event the Police submit a review application, the Sub-Committee would need to re-examine the licence.


Supporting documents: