Agenda item

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by the Metropolitan Police as a responsible authority.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report on the application for review of the Socialite Bar, 272 Muswell Hill, N10 premises licence, brought by the Metropolitan Police under the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives. The report set out the guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the application for review and supporting documentation, existing premises licence, representations from the responsible authorities, letters of representation from local residents and the response from the premises.

PC Mark Greaves, Police Licensing Officer, introduced the review application and raised the following points:

·         This area was known for serious crime and disorder and the police had been working with the venues at this location to try and prevent further incidents.

·         The Socialite Bar had been cooperating with the police, but had been unable to address ongoing problems with crime and disorder and in fact there had been an increase in incidents. The police therefore felt that the only option was to review the existing licence, in particular the operating hours, as most of the problems occurred in the late-night hours, and were associated with private bookings.

The press and public were excluded from the meeting for a period, to enable the Committee to view CCTV footage of some incidents of crime and disorder in the area, some not attributed to the Socialite Bar, but others where those involved had been identified as having come from the premises.

The press and public were readmitted to the meeting.

The Noise Enforcement Team Officer spoke to the written representation submitted. The Committee then heard from a number of local residents who had written in support of the review, who raised the following points:

·         Neighbours in Dukes Avenue had experienced numerous problems over the years, including disturbance from shouting, screaming and fighting. Some residents had relocated their bedrooms to the rear of their properties to minimise the disturbance.

·         Concerns were expressed regarding the impact of the venue on the safety of residents in a nearby children’s home.

·         In respect of the licensing objective for the prevention of public nuisance, evidence of repeated incidents of anti-social behaviour had been submitted, and the Committee needed to give due weight to this evidence.

·         The roundabout was a major transport interchange, and there were people in the vicinity at all times of day. There were therefore concerns for the safety of passers-by in relation to the incidents of serious crime and disorder that had been reported, in particular the use of firearms in the area. This was now a densely-populated residential area and the safety of passers-by needed to be taken into consideration.

·         In respect of the licensing objective for the protection of children form harm, it was noted that the premises was close to Muswell Hill Primary School and that most local households were families with young children. Residents were dealing with the problems associated with the venue, but getting no benefits as a community from the business. Revocation of the licence was requested.

·         It was felt that operating a premises of this nature was inappropriate and unacceptable given its location. It could be very intimidating for residents coming home late at night, and led to issues with vomit and litter being left in the surrounding streets in the morning. Residents were too frightened to confront people causing nuisance in the street directly, particularly very late at night.

The respondents addressed the Committee and raised the following issues:

·         The management of the premises shared the concerns of the police, they had worked hard to build up the business and cared for their staff, customers and local residents.

·         The premises had done everything the police had asked for, but unfortunately there had been some issues which could not have been prevented. In relation to the event held on 5 November, the venue had undergone due diligence in relation to meeting with the booker of the private party and their family, and had sent details of their identification over to the police as required. It had been anticipated that this would be a family party, and the issues that had arisen had been completely unexpected.

·         The premises did not wish for anyone to get hurt and were horrified at the details being provided by the police. The footage seen on CCTV had been shocking and they had no desire to be associated with such behaviour. They wished to operate a business promoting unity and tried hard to achieve this, working with the police and the safer nightclub initiative on improving safety in clubs. It was noted that the premises had no association with drugs.

·         As local residents themselves, the premises licence holder did not want any such violence in the community and would do whatever it took to prevent further problems.

·         The DPS advised that the police licensing visit  on 5 November, as reported in the review application, had been very positive in relation to the measures the premises had in place to uphold the licensing objectives, and that the officers had accepted the venue’s explanation that the alarms of the rear doors were out of operation only as the result of a recent refurbishment.

·         Since the incident of 5 November, the venue was no longer accepting bookings for 18^th birthday parties, and had implemented all the recommendations from the police licensing inspection; the rear door alarms were operational and access to these doors was monitored by a steward, 4 SIAs were on duty, an ID scanner was in operation and the CCTV was of the standard required by the police.

·         It was reported that the premises turned away anyone attempting to gain entry whilst intoxicated.

·         The premises only opened on Friday and Saturday nights currently, due to the current economic climate. On the night of the incident reported by the Noise Team, the DPS reported that the premises had closed at 0130 and that he was locking up when he had spoken to the Noise Team officer, and that it was therefore not possible that the noise nuisance observed on that occasion was emanating from the Socialite Bar. In any event, the level of sound-proofing at the premises had previously been praised by the police.

·         The shooting incident had left the premises management nervous for the safety of their customers and staff, and was not something that they had any wish to be associated with as a venue. It was also not in the interests of the venue for issues with crime and disorder to occur as it was putting their business and livelihood, and the livelihood of their staff, at risk.

·         The venue suggested regular meetings with the local residents going forward, in order to discuss any concerns or issues.

The Committee asked questions of all parties, and the following points were raised in discussion:

·         The Committee asked about the longer-term plans for the premises, given that it was only operating on two days a week at present. It was reported that it was not currently viable to open more than that in the current climate, and that the premises was therefore looking at other options for generating business, including corporate functions and staff events for other businesses. The venue had previously run comedy and jazz nights on other nights of the week, but this operating model had not been successful.

·         In response to a question relating to the report from the police licensing inspection that the DPS had been unable to recall the licensing objectives at the time of the visit, Mr Boateng advised that he knew the principles of the objectives, but had been unable to remember them verbatim when put on the spot during the visit. It was reported that he had last undertaken the training required 6 months previously.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding the policy of allowing walk-in customers on the same night as a private booking, it was confirmed that this depended on the nature of the booking, and whether the bookers had paid for exclusive use of the venue for the full night, or only until 0030, after which time members of the public would be permitted entry.

·         The Committee asked where the premises’ walk-in clientele came from; it was reported that some came from the Mossy Well or O’Neill’s nearby, and some were local residents. It was confirmed that most customers arrived late, after midnight.

·         The Committee asked about the finding at the licensing inspection that the licence at the premises showed the name of the previous DPS and had not been updated. It was confirmed that the transfer had been undertaken properly, but that in accordance with usual procedure the new licence had been sent to the premises licence holder’s home address and the version at the venue had not been replaced.

·         The Committee asked the respondents what they felt should be done to address the issues raised by the police. It was suggested that regular meetings with local residents and the other licensees in the area would help, and that there was a need to try and change the clientele coming to the area as a whole. It was felt that the problems related to the area as a whole, and not any specific venue.

·         The premises advised that the problems detailed by the police had arisen on nights where it was not the premises’ usual clientele in attendance. Local residents and PC Greaves stated that the people coming to the venue were not from the local area, with many driving to the area and parking in neighbouring roads.

In summing up, PC Greaves advised that the police were seeking a reduction in the premises’ operating hours and for the venue to change its business model in order to change the nature of the people being attracted to the premises and to reduce the levels of intoxication of people in attendance. A closing time of 0100 was proposed.

The respondents summed up by saying that they had previously tried opening on more days during the week with earlier closing times, but that this had not been sustainable. They stated that they knew most of their customers and these were good people who did not wish to cause any problems. They advised that they were willing to try running different types of events and stop booking out private parties, and aimed to create the right environment for the local area.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the review application and representations made by all parties, as well as the council’s statement of licensing policy and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 guidance.

Having heard evidence from the Police, local residents, and the respondents, the committee was satisfied that there had been a failure on the part of the licence holder to promote and uphold the licensing objectives relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder.

The evidence put before the committee in connection with violence and disorder, in particular three extremely serious incidents involving: the brandishing of a baseball bat which caused officers of the Metropolitan Police to draw a taser; the brandishing and use of a bladed article to stab someone; and most seriously, the discharge of firearms in the street following an event at the premises, all presented a real risk of harm to locals going about their normal business.

These incidents of crime and disorder linked to the premises in April and as recently as November 2016, were so grave that the Committee decided it was appropriate to revoke the licence.

The Committee took into account representations from the premises licence holder regarding their ongoing work to co-operate with the Police and the Licensing Authority to address the concerns raised in relation to crime and disorder, and also the impact that revoking the licence would have on the license owner’s livelihood.

However, in view of the seriousness of the incidents referred to in the hearing which the Committee was satisfied could be attributed to patrons of the premises, the Committee felt that complete revocation of the licence was the only measure that could ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives, in particular for the prevention of crime and disorder.

The committee only made its decision after considering all the evidence and was satisfied that revocation of the licence was an appropriate and proportionate response to the matters that were put before it.