Agenda item

Aquum, 68-70 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UL (Clapham Town)

Minutes:

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a review of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance, and to sections 1 and 5 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 paragraphs 6.1 of the report on page 89 of the agenda papers.

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed:

 

·      This was a review for a premises licence.

·      The review had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police after three alleged assaults had taken place at the premises.

·      The application received five representations in support of the review. This included the Licensing team, Public Protection, Public Health and two residents.

·      CCTV footage had been taken from the premises had been provided.

·      Additional information had been circulated following the publication of the report. 

 

 

Presentation by the applicant

           

The applicant’s representative, Mr James Rankin, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      The application for review was submitted on 30 July 2019, following a series of issues that had occurred at the premises in June 2019. 

·      Having examined the Police reports, the issues at the premises appeared to be less serious than originally thought.

·      Since the review application had been submitted, no issues of note had taken place at the premises.

·      The review had had also had an effect on the other licensed premises in the area as licence holders became more conscious of potentially losing their licence.

·      The premises licence holder had been cooperating with the Police and had been helpful and compliant.

·      The premises licence holder had introduced protocols including removing from duty three members of SIA door staff who were causing Police and Licensing concern.

·      Other processes had been introduced by the premises licence holder and the applicant felt that matters could be revisited.

·      This was the first time that the premises had come to the attention of the Police.

·      All parties considered potential conditions together and the documents that had been circulated was the product of a number of meetings and collaborative suggestions. 

·      All parties, in general, had agreed all conditions.

·      The Police were not simply conceding to an agreement and wanted to make it clear that if the proposed conditions were not complied with then the Police would not hesitate to submit an application to revoke the licence. 

·      The applicant had spoken to the Public Health team who had agreed to the proposed arrangements. 

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

The Licensing Manager, Ms Bina Patel stated that she was in agreement with the proposed conditions but that the proposed condition for the retention of CCTV footage should be 31 days (not 30 days).

 

The premises licence holder agreed with the proposal.

           

Public Health Consultant, Ms Rachael Scantlebury, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      She had no objections to the proposed conditions.

 

Presentation by the premises licence holder

 

In response to questions from Members, the representative for the applicant, Mr Jeremy Barkinformed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Due to the efforts made by the Police, the premises licence holder was able to work very constructively with the applicant.

·      On 8 June 2019, before the premises had opened,there had been a power failure and the computer systems, lights, CCTV, tills and other systems went down. 

·      Upon investigating the incident, it appeared that a number of fuses had tripped. This was then fixed to a point where all systems were working.

·      Within the premises licence holder’s office, there were two monitors and two systems to record CCTV footage.

·      The premises licence holder also had a live feed of the CCTV footage on his phone.

·      When the system was switched back on following the power failure, one of the CCTV cameras was not recording. This was discovered overnight before the premises licence holder was even approached for CCTV footage.

·      An electrician was called in to remedy the problem and an extractor fan was replaced.

·      The premises licence holder subsequently contacted the electrician and the CCTV consultants to make arrangements in order to ensure that there was no loss of CCTV footage in the future.

·      Arrangements were made so that the CCTV cameras would continue to record through two different outlets and, in addition to this, both CCTV systems would record each other. 

·      There was no reason for the CCTV recording system to have stopped working.

·      If there was a fault on any of the cameras or a fault on the recording system, an alarm would sound in the manager’s office and the premises licence holder would receive an email directly to his phone.

·      The representative for the applicant had put forward his case fairly, but the premises licence holder had no previous problematic history and was a board member on the Clapham BID and occupied responsible positions for the welfare of the night-time economy.                

·      He accepted that there were three incidents that had occurred in premises. However, the issues had not occurred in the manner suggested by the evidence put forward.

·      Work had been done with premises licence holder to carefully work through any issues and put the licence holder in a position where issues such as the ones reported could not arise again.

 

In response to further questions from Members, Mr Barkinformed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      All systems had gone down during the incident on 8 June 2019. There was no explanation as to why one system would record CCTV footage and the other would not.

·      All the footage that had been recorded was still available for inspection.

·      The premises licence holder had agreed with the conditions that had been proposed.

·      The premises licence holder did not have a CCTV supplier but had a 24/7 maintenance contract. The supplier for this had visited the premises and was ready to upgrade the system which would include a CCTV monitor that would be installed near the entrance.

·      There appeared to be some fault caused in the CCTV equipment.

                   

Adjournment and Decision

At 8:22pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal Advisor and Clerk to deliberate in private.

The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations 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 grant review application and impose conditions.

RESOLVED: To grant the review application and impose conditions.

Announcement of Decision

Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the review application and impose conditions which had beenagreed by Police, the Public Health team and the Licensing team. The Sub-Committee also wished to remind the licence holder of the comments made by Police and that if there were to be further breaches of the premises licence, then the Police would seek revocation due to the severity of the incidents reported to have occurred. Full written reasons would follow in due course.

 

Supporting documents: