EALING LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE FULL REVIEW HEARING: THE AVENUE WINE BAR Tuesday, 9 th April 2013

Transcription

1 EALING LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE FULL REVIEW HEARING: THE AVENUE WINE BAR Tuesday, 9 th April 2013 PRESENT: Councillors Kate Crawford, Shital Manro and Nigel Sumner ALSO PRESENT: Ealing Borough Council Simon Boniface Mike Davidson Alison Luff Cameron MacLean Emma Owen Applicant: Metropolitan Police Rachael Kapila DC Bob Boodhram Sergeant Graham Edwards PC Les Smith Licensee Leo Charalambides Lucy Kavrazoni Biar Hawaizi Noise Response Team, Regulatory Services Committee Services (observing) Legal Officer Democratic Services Officer Licensing Officer Counsel, 3 Raymond Buildings Counsel, Francis Taylor Building Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) Premises SIA Staff LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE: TUESDAY, 9 TH APRIL 2013 THE AVENUE WINE BAR, 19 THE AVENUE, WEST EALING W13 8JR The Chair introduced the Sub Committee Members and officers. The other parties present then introduced themselves. At the invitation of the Chair, Emma Owen, Licensing Officer, presented the Licensing Officer s report. The Chair then invited Ms Kapila to present the application. Presentation on Behalf of the Applicant Ms Kapila, by way of background, stated that there had been a number of incidents of crime and disorder at the premises. This had resulted in the Police requesting a meeting with Ms Kavrazoni, the designated premises supervisor (DPS), at Ealing Council s main offices at Perceval House. The meeting took place on 10 th October 2013 and an action plan had been agreed with Ms Kavrazoni to address Police concerns regarding crime and disorder, including making adjustments to the existing CCTV to the satisfaction of the Police. However, the subsequent adjustments to the CCTV, as agreed with the Police, were only made after the incident that had triggered the current review proceedings had occurred. Ms Kapila noted that, at the Interim Steps hearing on 14 th March, the Police had agreed not to pursue the temporary suspension of the licence as there was some doubt as to whether the glassing incident that was the subject of the review proceedings had in fact taken place at the premises. Instead, a number of conditions had been agreed between the Police and Ms Kavrazoni and these conditions would remain in place until such time as the Full Review Hearing could take place. 1

2 Ms Kapila went on to say that the Police continued to have grave concerns about the way in which the premises were managed. In particular, the police were concerned about the failure to act on making the agreed adjustments to the CCTV; that the glassing incident had not been reported to the Police by the management or employees at the time of the incident, or at all; and that there had been no preservation of the crime scene by those in charge of the premises. Ms Kapila went on to say that further investigation by the Police had led them to the conclusion that the incident had taken place at the premises, although this was denied by the premises owner and DPS, and that there had been an attempted cover up of the incident by those present at the time of the incident. Ms Kapila then went through a number of incidents detailed in the Licensing Officer s report and various Police Computer Aided Despatch (CAD) reports, as follows: Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with Intent: 15 th April 2012 Ms Kapila referred to an incident that occurred outside the premises on 15 th April 2012 in which a man was assaulted outside the premises and he was hit in the face by a bottle and subsequently kicked when he was on the ground. Theft of a Customer s Mobile Phone: 22 nd July 2013 A theft of a Customer s Mobile Phone from her bag had taken place at 02:00 hours on 22 nd July It was noted that the theft had taken place after the premises should have been closed and that there was no temporary event notice in place extending the terminal hour. In addition, the Police had to make several requests to be provided with the relevant CCTV, only to be told that the CCTV was deleted after five days and was no longer available. At that time, the Police were assured that the CCTV would be adjusted to meet with the standards required by the Police. Assault by Manager on 17-year Old Female Patron: 13 th October 2012 There was a report of the premises manager, Mr Majid, verbally abusing a 17-year old female patron, spitting in her face and manhandling her. The complaint was made by the alleged victim on the Monday after the incident was said to have happened i.e. 13 th October This incident resulted in an intervention meeting with the Ealing Police Licensing Team and the owners of the wine bar, Lucy Kavrazoni and her husband Hallko Majid on 22 nd October At that meeting, the Police were told that CCTV recordings were kept for 14 days before being deleted. The Police requested a copy of the CCTV at that meeting. When the request was followed up by DC Boodhram on 23 rd October, he was informed that the recording had been deleted. Mr Majid had subsequently been arrested in relation to the assault, but no charges were brought as there was insufficient evidence and no CCTV to support the charge. Although not as serious as the glassing incident that occurred on or about Friday, 1 st March 2013, and which was the subject of the review, Ms Kapila contended that these incidents were indicative of the way in which the premises were managed by Ms Kavrazoni and her husband, Mr Hallko Majid. Glassing On or About Friday, 1 st March 2013 Ms Kapila stated that there was sufficient, credible evidence before the Sub Committee to convince Members that the incident had taken place at the premises, as described in the various witness statements and CAD report before the Sub 2

3 Committee. At best, Ms Kavrazoni, as DPS, was not in control of the premise. At worst, she knew of the incident and had lied to the Sub Committee at the Interim Steps hearing. She proposed that this particular incident put the other incidents of crime and disorder into context. Noise Complaints Ms Kapila then referred to representation by Ealing Council s Noise Response Team supporting the Police application for a Review of the premises. She noted that there had been numerous complaints made to the Noise Team, many of them indicating that the premises was operating beyond its licensed hours. Ms Kapila then referred the Members to various sections in the Home Office Guidance and the Council s Statement of Licensing Policy on the grounds for revocation of a premises licence. She stated that, if the Sub Committee was satisfied that there had been a deliberate cleaning up of the crime scene, based on the evidence before them, then the owners and management of the premises had abdicated their responsibilities to run the premises in a safe manner and were putting people at risk. To suspend the licence would simply delay dealing with the problems associated with the premises. Further, regarding the intention that Mr Majid becomes the DPS for the premises, the evidence before the Sub Committee indicated that Mr Majid was not a suitable person to take on the responsibilities of being DPS. In conclusion, Ms Kapila stated that the problems of crime and disorder associated with these premises were deeper than any problems that could be resolved by the imposition of conditions. Therefore, it was appropriate and proportionate for the Sub Committee to revoke the premises licence. In response to a number of questions by Members, the following information was provided: (i) (ii) (iii) The only reference to the Action Plan agreed at the intervention meeting on 10 th October 2012 was in the from Ms Kavrazoni to DC Boodhram on page 34 of the Licensing Officer s report requesting that he send her a copy of the plan. It was confirmed that a written copy of the Action Plan had never been sent to Ms Kavrazoni, the reason being that, due to pressure on Police time, the Action Plan had never been committed to writing; The report on the incident regarding the assault on the 17-year old female had been prepared by DC Boodhram s supervisor, but the matter had not been taken further; (iv) The fact that a 17-year old had been allowed into the premises was a matter of concern for the Police given the normal Challenge 21 policy that operated in licensed premises; (v) The Action Plan was a voluntary agreement and the Police usually allowed 28 days before following up and agreed action. On this occasion, the police had not followed up to see if the action had been taken; (vi) Given the number of licensed premises in the borough, and that premises licence holders should be working in partnership with the Police, it was not 3

4 possible to follow up every action agreed with the Police to ensure that it had been carried out; (vii) The premises were Amber on the Police RAG (Red Amber Green) system and that some monitoring of the premises had taken place by the Police; (viii) The Police had been aware of noise complaints in relation to the premises and had held a meeting with Murray Edwards, Regulatory Services Officer, to discuss the complaints; and (ix) The Police had made clear their concerns to the premises owner and that the purpose of the Action Plan had been to bring the premises back to the standard required by the licensing objectives. Presentation on Behalf of the Respondent Mr Charalambides stated that the purpose of the Review Hearing was to promote the licensing objectives and to find a solution to the problems described, if possible. He was grateful for the concession that the three incidents referred to by Ms Kapila prior to the incident that resulted in the Review Hearing were, as she said, minor incidents. In support of this, Mr Charalambides referred to each of the incidents, as follows: Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with Intent: 15 th April 2012 The victim had admitted to drinking at the Drayton Court Hotel before the incident had taken place and that there were no witnesses to confirm what had happened. In addition, it was only at the insistence of the victim s mother that he had gone to the hospital and reported the incident. Theft of a Customer s Mobile Phone: 22 nd July 2013 There was nothing to indicate that the theft of the phone was necessarily related to something that had occurred at the premises. Assault by Manager on 17-year Old Female Patron: 13 th October 2012 It was Mr Majid s contention that it was the alleged victim who had been abusive to him and that it was her who had spat in his face. The incident had taken place during a birthday party when the girl had locked herself in the toilet. In dealing with the incident, Mr Majid had taken the decision to close the premises early and the girl had subsequently left the premises without having to be forced to leave. The incident had then been reported to the police. Glassing On or About Friday, 1 st March 2013 Mr Charalambides stated that there were several concerning aspects regarding the account of this incident viz. There was conflicting evidence as to how much the victim had had to drink and where. That the victim had had to cajole his friends into giving evidence. There were no witnesses to the actual glassing. There were different reports of how the victim was transported to hospital. None of the passengers said to have accompanied the victim to the hospital could recall the name of the driver. 4

5 Mr Charalambides went on to say that the premises comprised a small venue in which someone would have seen the incident if it had taken place. Instead, the only accounts of what happened were from witnesses who said that the victim was injured but was able to nurse himself by going to the toilet to get some towels or paper for his face. With such a serious wound as the one described, it was to be expected that the victim would remain on the floor and not get up. Further, there was some evidence (page 26 of 27 of the CAD report) to suggest that the victim knew his assailant and that the witness statements had only been procured to support a claim by the victim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (page 22 of 27 of the CAD report). In addition, the Police had confirmed that it was not a minicab that took the victim to the hospital as had been suggested. Mr Charalambides stated that the incident described was not so serious as to warrant revocation of the licence when reference was made to the examples of serious crime and disorder set out in Paragraph of the Home Office Guidance. Crimes that were listed in the guidance that would warrant revocation of a premises licence included, amongst other, drugs and firearms offences. Instead, the premises were the types of premises where it would be appropriate to impose some form of regulatory control which could be achieved by working in partnership with the various authorities. It was regrettable that relations had broken down with the Police, but the arrangements that had been reached between the premises owners and the Council s Noise Team was indicative of what could be achieved when working in partnership. Mr Charalambides suggested that the areas of concern were, as follows: (i) Dispersal of patrons after leaving the premises. (ii) Drinking and smoking outside the premises. (iii) Upgrading of the CCTV. (iv) The suitability of Mr Majid to become the DPS for the premises. (v) Proof-of-Age scheme adopted by the premises. He, therefore, proposed restarting discussions with the Police and that consideration be given to the following matters: (i) Intervention At present, there were no conditions on the premises licence and it would be appropriate to include conditions on the licence. (ii) Restore Confidence in the Personalities The premises were run by a husband and wife team and it was appropriate that they be kept in the spotlight with regard to responsibility for managing the premises and that they should not be able to hide behind the shield of another member of staff. (iii) Conditions That the following conditions be added to the licence: 1) That there be one SIA member of staff on duty on Friday and Saturday nights from 21:00 hours until close and two SIA members of staff on duty whenever there a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) had been agreed or there was a party. 5

6 2) Conditions 1 to 3 as agreed at the Interim Steps hearing viz. 1. Colour CCTV to the Satisfaction of Police This will be judged in relation to the advice available in the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) document CCTV Operational Requirement Manual 28/09 with special emphasis on the provision of identification quality images of people entering or leaving the premises through any doorway (but not a combination of the two). The system should also provide general views of the interior of the premises and exterior areas where relevant. The system must record and store images for 31 days and must record between 6 to 12 frames per second. It must be able instantly to download recorded images onto a readable format (CD or DVD) at the time of request. I.e. to prevent any need to seize the hard drive thus rendering the system inoperative. If the CCTV equipment is inoperative, or is otherwise not installed and working to the satisfaction of the Police and Licensing Authority, the premises shall not be used for licensable activities unless with prior agreement from the Police. Notices shall be displayed at the entrance to the premises, and in prominent positions throughout the premises, advising that CCTV is in operation. For the purpose of these CCTV conditions 'the Police' refers to the licensing/partnership office of Ealing Police Station and 'the Licensing Authority' refers to the Licensing Authority of the London Borough of Ealing 2. No glass to be passed over the bar; and 3. Alcohol to be decanted into suitable polycarbonate glasses before being provided to customers. be added to the licence. 3) Noise and Dispersal a) That no more than 60 persons be allowed in the premises at any time (Fire Authority recommendations were for no more than 90 persons at any one time), and that SIA staff use counters to ensure the number was not exceeded. b) That there be no entry or re-entry, save for smokers, after 23:30 hours. Mr Charalambides stated that this last condition was an important one as it would address the problem of patrons from The Drayton Court Hotel across the road, which shut at 02:00 hours, seeking entry to The Avenue after 2.00am. c) The number of smokers outside the premises be limited to six. 4) That a Challenge 25 policy be implemented. (iv) Training 6

7 That both Mr Majid and Mrs Kavrazoni undertake DPS training and, in addition, that Mr Majid completes an SIA course so that he would be better prepared to deal with any incidents in the future. Mr Charalambides confirmed that, having made the necessary arrangements with the licensing agent representing Mrs Kavrazoni, both Mr Majid and Mrs Kavrazoni could undertake the proposed training in the next two weeks. To allow Mr Majid and Mrs Kavrazoni to undertake the training and to put the various measures into place, Mr Charalambides stated that it was proposed that the premises close for a period of two weeks for this to be done. Mr Charalambides stated that, if the Sub Committee were minded to revoke the licence, that this would likely result in an appeal in another place. He referred the Members to Paragraph 42 of the Hope and Glory case 1 where it was said: Licensing decisions often involve weighing a variety of competing considerations: the demand for licensed establishments, the economic benefit to the proprietor and to the locality by drawing in visitors and stimulating the demand, the effect on law and order, the impact on the lives of those who live and work in the vicinity, and so on. Sometimes a licensing decision may involve narrower questions, such as whether noise, noxious smells or litter coming from premises amount to a public nuisance. Although such questions are in a sense questions of fact, they are not questions of the "heads or tails" variety. They involve an evaluation of what is to be regarded as reasonably acceptable in the particular location. In any case, deciding what (if any) conditions should be attached to a licence as necessary and proportionate to the promotion of the statutory licensing objectives is essentially a matter of judgment rather than a matter of pure fact. He added that the reasoning in the Hope and Glory case had been approved by the High Court in Matthew v Taylor 2 at Paragraph 73 where the court had said: Once triggered, it requires the making of an evaluative judgment, involving (as Toulson LJ said in Hope and Glory Public House) the weighing of a variety of competing public policy considerations, such as the demand for licensed establishments, the economic benefit to the proprietor and to the locality by drawing in visitors and stimulating the demand, the effect on law and order, and including the impact generally on the lives of those who live and work in the vicinity. It inherently involves an evaluation of what is to be regarded as reasonably acceptable in the particular location, and of what is necessary and proportionate to the promotion of the statutory licensing objectives in terms of scope of the licence and conditions in a local context. In conclusion, Mr Charalambides stated that it was still not certain that the incident of the glassing had actually taken place at the premises. To this end, Mr Biar Hawaizi, who was a SIA member of staff on duty that night stated that he routinely checked the toilets and the steps outside the premises and that he had not seen any blood. Subsequently, when he contacted Acton Police station, he was advised that no 1 R (on the application of Hope and Glory Public House) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 2 Matthew Taylor v (1) Manchester City Council (2) TCG Bars Ltd [2012] EWHC 3467 (Admin) 7

8 incident had been reported and that there was no requirement for him to provide a statement. The Chair proposed, and it was agreed, that, before asking the respondent any questions, The Noise and Nuisance Team should be invited to make their presentation first so that questions might be directed to both the respondent and Mr Boniface at the same time. Presentation on Behalf of the Noise and Nuisance Team Simon Boniface, Regulatory Services Officer, referred Members of the Sub Committee to the representations made by the Noise and Nuisance Team, which were set out on page 37 et seq. in the Licensing Officer s report. He stated that the premises had been known to the Noise Team for a number of years and recently, there had been an escalation in the number of noise complaints received in relation to the premises. The main causes of the complaints were: Raised voices, amplified music, noise breakout, and structural transmission of noise from the premises Noise from people leaving the premises Noise caused by smokers outside the premises All of which occurred during normal sleep hours. He stated that a verbal warning had been given to the premises manager. Despite the warning, there were further noise complaints the next day. Consequently, a noise limiter had been fitted and further visits to the premises had been carried out by Noise Team officers. Mr Boniface went on to say that the problems appeared to be seasonal in that there were a lot of noise complaints about the premises in the summer, but none in the winter. However, he could not be certain that the complaints were seasonal. Mr Boniface then referred to the random visit that had been carried out by Noise and Nuisance Team officers on 6 th October 2012, which was detailed in the Licensing Officer s report. Observations by the officers led them to conclude that noise from the premises constituted a statutory nuisance and should not be allowed to continue. At present, the noise complaints about the premises remained open. Mr Boniface then referred Members of the Sub Committee to the proposed conditions to address the issue of noise nuisance, as set out on page 39 of the Licensing Officer s report. In response, Mr Charalambides stated that his client was willing to accept the conditions proposed by the Noise Team. In response to various questions by Members of the Panel and counsel for the applicant, Mrs Kavrazoni provided the following information: (i) (ii) (iii) That she accepted responsibility for not having taken action in upgrading the CCTV as proposed by the Police at the intervention meeting on 10 th October. That she first became aware of the glassing incident on the 1 st of March when she was contacted by the Police and that it was a few days after the Police had contacted her that she was informed about the incident by members of staff. She did not know when it was her husband, Mr Majid, had viewed the CCTV looking for the glassing incident. 8

9 Ms Kapila noted that, as the DPS, it was Mrs Kavrazoni s responsibility to deal with incident and not leave it to her husband as premises manager. (iv) On the 1 st of March, she was at home and her husband, who had been at the premises returned home during the evening to help her with domestic chores as she was pregnant before returning to the premises. Staff on duty that night included two SIAQ door staff, one inside the premises and one outside, and two members of bar staff. (v) There were about 40 customers that night. Mrs Kavrazoni the premises. then described the positioning of the CCTV and the layout of (vi) Customers were not allowed to take drinks outside, where there was a small fenced off area for smokers, after 11.00pm, and that the seating and tables in the fenced off area were taken inside after 11.00pm. (vii) A request had been made to the late night hairdresser s premises next door, which remained open until 2.00am, not to use the smoking area outside the premises and that this point had been raised when discussing the Action Plan with the police. In response to further questions, the following information was provided: (i) (ii) Mr Charalambides stated that, given that the existing licence was blissfully free of conditions, it was standard practice to offer the conditions proposed in an effort to repair relations with the Police. In addition, his client was aware of the need to produce an appropriate response. The only other licensed premises in the area that was open late was the Drayton Arms. (iii) The downstairs part of the premises could comfortably accommodate 30 people and that the most that the premise as a whole could comfortably accommodate would be 60. (iv) Staff included Mr Majid, Alain, who was the bar manager and friends and family who helped out as bar staff. (v) It was accepted that additional training was required for the bar staff. (vi) The 17-year old female who was the subject of one of the incidents referred to by the Police had been on the premises as a guest at an 18th Birthday Party. It had been agreed with the party s organiser that anyone under the age of 18 would have to leave the premises by 9.30pm and that no alcohol would be sold to young people under the age of 18. Further to the incident taking place, it had been agreed not to hold any more 18th Birthday parties. (vii) Mr Majid had completed a management conflict course At this stage, Mr Charalambides proposed that a possible solution to concerns about special events such as the one described and weekend opening would be to have a personal licence holder on the premises from 7.00p until the premises closed. (viii) With regard to the history of noise complaints, Mrs Kavrazoni stated that SAI staff were only employed at weekends and for special events and that the premises were punctual in stopping serving at 1.00pm. 9

10 Mr Charalambides reminded Members that there was half-hour drinking up time after the premises stopped serving alcohol and that staff would be on the premises for a further half hour after that tidying up. (ix) Mr Charalambides stated that his client had considered revising the premises hours. However, as the premises catered to a predominantly 18- to 35-year old African-Caribbean clientele who were traditionally late night patrons, it would be necessary to change the premises clientele if the hours were reduced. (x) Regarding concerns about staff training, Mr Charalambides proposed that Mr Majid and Alain could both undertake DPS training and that they could then train other members of staff accordingly. Mrs Kavrazoni added that staff would be willing to undertake training on a regular basis. (xi) Regarding noise nuisance, it was proposed that the condition restricting entry after 11.30pm would address that issue. (viii) Regarding the delay in upgrading the CCTV, Mrs Kavrazoni stated that she had been given conflicting advice about how easy it would be to make the necessary adjustments to the existing CCTV. As it transpired, the adjustments required were very easy to make. In response to a question about how the Panel could be confident that the respondent would adhere to the conditions proposed when it was the Police s contention that they would not; that the premises owners and managers had shown a wilful disregard for licensing laws; and that the management lacked the skills and control to manage the premises, Mr Charalambides said that he was concerned that Members of the Sub Committee might be pre-judging the issue. In response to a rebuke from the Chair, Mr Charalambides said that he accepted that the Panel Members had listened to both sides representations. He then went on to make the following points by way of summarising his presentation: (i) (ii) (iii) His client had made a number of admissions to the Panel and, in doing so, had been honest in her responses to the Panel. That his client had taken appropriate action in ending the 18 th Birthday party after the incident referred to with the 17-year old female, despite the fact that it was these types of events that the owners relied on to make the business profitable. The CCTV had now been suitably adjusted. (iv) His client had worked with the Council s noise team to put sound limiters in place. (v) Dispersal of persons from the premises would be addressed by limiting the number of people outside to 6 persons at any one time (vi) The No Entry/Re-Entry condition would prevent persons from the Drayton Arms seeking late night entry to the premises. (vii) A proof-of-age scheme would be introduced. (viii) Suitable training would be provided for all staff and that a personal licence holder could be on the premises at all times. To accommodate the necessary staff training, Mr Charalambides proposed that the premises could close for a period of four, rather than two, weeks to allow 10

11 this to be done. He suggested that the DPS would be responsible for training bar staff and that a training manual would be kept and updated, as required. In conclusion, Mr Charalambides stated that the Sub Committee could be confident that the proposed conditions would be met by the management and staff in light of the frank admissions that had been made to the Panel today. He stated that no members of the staff or management were aware of the alleged glassing incident and, therefore, they could not admit to this having taken place. The respondent had already agreed that there would be no more 18 th Birthday parties at the premises and the owners had invested in a sound limiter at the request of the Council s Noise Team. He proposed that a 4-week suspension of the licence would allow the relationship with the Police to be repaired. Summary of Presentation by Counsel on Behalf of the Police Ms Kapila stated that it was no true to say that the incidents that took place in 2012 were relatively minor compared to the glassing incident in March The incidents showed a lack of management and poor relations with the Police. The shifting information that had been given to the Police regarding the CCTV appeared to be obstructive and should be considered in the context of the respondent s approach to the serious incident of 1 st March There were evidential doubts surrounding the incident on the 13 th of March. However, this was not a criminal proceeding and there was sufficient credible evidence upon which the Sub Committee could reach a conclusion, particularly the reference to one of the witnesses saying that she knew Alain, the bar manager, from their school days, which had a ring of truth about it. She stated that the Panel should have concerns about the way in which the management of the premises reacted to the glassing incident and the claim that Mr Majid had reviewed the CCTV footage and had found no evidence of the incident. With regard to the Home Office guidance on serious offences meriting revocation of a premises licence, glassing was a serious offence and could merit consideration of revocation of a licence. Regarding the Police s failure to follow up on the Action Plan and the CCTV, this might be expected in an ideal world. However, this was a red herring. The fact that the Police had felt compelled to have a meeting with the owners was indicative of the serious nature of the matter. It was also notable that the Police requirements regarding the CCTV had only been met after the Interim Steps proceedings had been issued. In conclusion, Ms Kapila proposed that revocation was appropriate as there was sufficient evidence of the incident having taken place and the way in which the management had responded to managing the incident. It was not clear how training would overcome the problems of a stabbing having taken place and then not being reported by the owners or management of the premises. That it was for the Sub Committee to take the action that it felt appropriate and not to be distracted by any possible appeal against their decision. An appeal would only be successful if the Sub Committee was wrong. To this end, Ms Kapila proposed that the Sub Committee refer to its own Statement of Licensing Policy when considering its decision. The Sub Committee then retired to consider its decision. 11

12 Resolved: Having carefully considered the papers before it, the representations made by the parties, the Council s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the decision of the Sub Committee was to revoke the Premises Licence. Reasons for the Decision The Sub Committee was satisfied that, on the evidence before them, a serious incident had taken place at the premises on or about Friday, 1 st March 2013 as described by the Police. Of particular concern to the Sub Committee was the manner in which the premises owner and management had responded to the incident and their failure to cooperate with the Police in the subsequent investigation by the Police into the incident. The Sub Committee s concern was all the greater given the concerns of the Police regarding the premises prior to the incident occurring and the failure of the premises to address the Police concerns regarding the operation of the premises CCTV. The Sub Committee was also concerned regarding the failure of the DPS and premises manager to implement other elements of the Action Plan that had been agreed with the Police at the intervention meeting on 22 nd October The Sub Committee was also concerned that there was a history of noise complaints relating to the premises and that a number of these complaints concerned noise emanating from the premises after the premises terminal hour. For these reasons, the Sub Committee had no confidence in the premises management and was not convinced that the imposition of conditions would allay their concerns regarding noise nuisance and serious crime and disorder. Therefore, it was deemed reasonable and proportionate to revoke the premises licence. The hearing ended at 5.30pm. COUNCILLOR KATE CRAWFORD, CHAIR 12