Agenda item

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by Enforcement Response as a Responsible Authority. 

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, outlined the application for a review by Enforcement Response on the grounds of public nuisance and crime and disorder.  The premises had been granted a licence in October 2006 for Late Night Refreshment and the sale of alcohol.  The licence holder had not been able to sell alcohol as he did not have a personal licence.  At the rear of the premises was a shed which was being used by the premises as a shisha hut, and this area was not covered by the premises licence.  A number of complaints had been received by Environmental Health in relation to the use of the premises, and to ward councillors regarding Anti Social Behaviour particularly at the rear of the premises.  Officers had visited the premises, and had been confronted with aggressive behaviour by patrons.  These issues had been reported since March 2015, and visits showed the hut was being used as a late night social club.

Charles Buckle, Enforcement Officer, presented the application for a review on behalf of Enforcement Response.  A visit had been made to the premises on 3 August 2016, and found the layout of the premises to be substantially different to that set out on the premises licence.  A number of noise complaints had been made, particularly in relation to noise at the rear of the premises, from the hut.  A noise abatement notice had been served on the premises.  Mr Buckle advised that the recommendation of the Enforcement Response team was that the licence be revoked, or suspended at the very least.

Graham Hopkins, Premises Licence Holder’s representative, presented the response to the application for a review.  In relation to the aggressive behaviour towards the Enforcement Officer, he confirmed that it was patrons at the premises, and that the management have barred these individuals from the premises.  Mr Hopkins advised that a variation had been submitted for a change of layout at the premises.  He also advised that although Mr Wagdi had no intention of selling alcohol at the premises, he did not want to remove this from the licence.  In relation to the use of the hut at the rear of the premises, Mr Hopkins explained that Mr Wagdi would be applying to include this area in the premises, and that he had advised Mr Wagdi that no licensable activities would be permitted to take place there, and that noise should be kept to a minimum.

Mr Hopkins advised the Committee that Mr Wagdi was offering the following conditions – closing time of the premises to be 0030; after 2200, only a maximum of 10 customers would be permitted on the premises, and this would be monitored by a member of staff.

In response to the Committee, Mr Wagdi advised that he had built the shed in 2012, and had submitted a planning application in November 2015. 

Mr Wagdi responded to further questions from the Committee:  since the noise abatement notice in June 2016, he had displayed notices in the premises asking patrons to keep noise to a minimum; the television in the hut was muted after 2300; the hut would be closed at 0030; he had provided a contact number to neighbours following the noise complaints, and not received any complaints since this time.

Mr Hopkins summed up and reiterated that Mr Wagdi had applied for planning permission for the hut, and he would chase its progress.

The Committee adjourned to consider their decision.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a review of the premises licence, the representations of Enforcement Response and the licence holder, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the s182 guidance.

The Committee resolved:

·                That, as agreed with the license holder, the plan for the premises should be modified to include the shisha area and the new internal layout of the shop.

·                That the conditions of the license should be modified as follows:

1.         The shisha area to close at 23.00 daily.

2.         Notices to be clearly displayed in the area requesting customers to be quiet while using the area, to leave the area quietly and not loiter in the area.

3.         After 21.00 a member of staff to be deployed in the area to monitor customer conduct, ensure customers use and leave the area quietly and that after 21.00 no more than 10 people use the area at any one time.

4.      After 21.00 a maximum of 10 people to be permitted to use the area at any one time.

5.      Notices to be displayed requesting customers to leave the area quietly, not to loiter outside and dispose of litter properly / legally.

6.      CCTV to current MPS standards to be installed and maintained which must cover the inside of the shop, frontage and the shisha area. Must include 31 days storage of images, heads & shoulders shots of those entering the premises, be capable of providing images for Police or Authorised Officers on request and staff trained to download images on request.

7.      A CCTV trained member of staff capable to be on duty when the premises are open to the public.

8.      Staff trained on induction and 6 monthly refresher training in serving customers in turn, acknowledging customers, explaining serving times, monitoring customer conduct, avoiding conflict, asking customers not to loiter outside and monitoring the shisha area. 

Reasons

The Committee  heard evidence that the noise nuisance had been caused by patrons using the shisha area at the rear of the premises which is not part of the license and considered that the area should be included. This was agreed by the license holder.

In order to promote the licensing objective of the prevention of  public nuisance the Committee considered it appropriate to impose the conditions above. Given the close proximity of the premises and shisha area in particular to the neighbouring residential premises, the Committee considered it appropriate that the area be closed at 11 p.m. when neighbours are likely to be going to bed and the reduced use of the area and monitoring should commence at 9 p.m. when any neighbouring children could be going to bed.

The Committee takes very seriously the threat to the safety of Council Officers that occurred on 26^th June  2016 when officers attended the premises in response to a noise complaint. The Committee heard evidence that the perpetrators were patrons of the business and not the license holder or his staff. The Committee  takes this opportunity to warn the license holder that he is responsible not only for his staff,  but also for the conduct of his patrons as linked to his operation of the license and that the Committee take a very dim view of the intimidation or harassment of its officers. The  expectation is that the license holder will take all necessary steps to ensure that an incident of this nature does not occur again.