Agenda item

To consider an objection to a temporary event notice

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

The Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

• Representations opposing the application had been received from the Metropolitan Police and the Council’s Noise and Nuisance Team.
  
  
• It was clarified that the sale of alcohol was generally permitted between 12pm and 4.30am on Saturday, and that the Temporary Event Notice application was asking to carry through from 0500 to 1200 on that date, for up to 150 people.

 

Presentation by the notice giver

 

Mr Gareth Noble, representative for the applicant, informed the Sub Committee that:

 

• The applicant wanted to use the site to encourage a vibrant night time economy.
  
  
• It was explained that the applicant worked with a security agency which utilised bodycams and had medical training, which promoted safety. 

 

Questions to applicant

 

• It was asked by the Sub-Committee what the event was aimed to be. It was explained that one of the events would begin at 6pm on Saturday and end at 2am on the Sunday, and would be a techno music event. It was explained that the next event would start at 5am, and it was expected that event goers would be coming from other sites or coming from late night working. It was stressed that the applicant had an experienced team in order to ensure that they could successfully organise the proposed event.
  
  
• The applicant explained that the event would utilise the main space to undertake the event, which would include drinking, dancing and music. It was noted that the general age group of attendees was expected to be diverse.
  
  
• It was asked what the capacity for the event would be, what advertising was taking place, the target audience, and any medical requirements which would be required for a long event. It was noted by the applicant that the members of the hired security SIA team were medically trained, and it was noted that it could be requested that medically trained staff could be present.
  
  
• Officers stressed that there was a need to have separate medical staff available from security staff, in order to ensure a safe event, as well as staff to ensure safeguarding against violence. It was noted by the applicant that they implemented Ask Angela.
  
  
• The applicant explained that they would investigate how well-trained staff were on welfare issues.
  
  
• It was explained that the target audience was aimed at 25-40 years, and noted that advertisement had not begun due to waiting for the event application.
  
  
• It was explained that the capacity of the site for the event would be expected to about at maximum of 150 people.
  
  
• The applicant noted that they could, as part of a condition for granting the TEN, that they could close the venue between the two events.
  
  
• Officers noted that they would have appreciated more information on the substance of the event which was being proposed as part of the application.
  
  
• The applicant explained that the set list for the proposed events would likely be of a different genre, which could encourage changes in crowds. It was stressed that there were two separate events proposed.
  
  
• It was asked it there was a possibility for people to loiter outside of the event following closure of the first event and waiting for the second. The applicant noted that the location was somewhat isolated and it was not expected that people would wait in the area.
  
  
• It was noted by the applicant that the security staff would have counters to monitor number of attendees at the event.
  
  

Presentation by objectors:

Police Constable Costache Adriana-Monica, objector and Mr Amir Darvish, Noise & Nuisance Officer and informed the Committee that

• The Police believed that current licenced hours were sufficient to undertake activities. There were also concerns regarding continuing service for an event for such a long period, and the potential for anti-social behaviour as a result.
  
  
• It was noted that there were concerns regarding the safety of staff during the event.
  
  
• The Noise & Nuisance Officer raised concerns regarding noise nuisance in the area and stressed that there was a risk of ambient noise travelling distances which could disturb residents. It was also noted that there was no clear action plan to ensure that any mitigation matters would be in place.
  
  
• It was asked whether additional stewards would help circumvent worries of noise and nuisance from patrons entering and exiting. The Noise & Nuisance Officer stressed that an event of that nature would need significant preparation for extended hours to prepare for potential issues from drink and drug consumption.

 

SUMMARY

 

• Objectors raised concerns regarding safety measures for the event which were considered to be inadequate and may not meet licencing objectives.
  
  
• Objectors considered current opening hours to be sufficient and that there was not a robust enough action plan to mitigate the risk of the event.
  
  
• The applicant considered that they were an experienced operator with an experienced staff who would be able to uphold the licencing objectives adequately. It was stressed that there had been no previous issues noted at the site which indicated robust plans on site to manage risk.

 

The Panel carefully considered the Temporary Event Notice (“TEN”) served by the Applicant dated 31 July 2025, the representations from Responsible Authorities and the Applicant made both orally and in writing and prior to and at the meeting, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Home Office guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Date applied for:    5 October 2025

The TEN was served in respect of the following licensable activities:

1. The Sale by Retail of Alcohol (for consumption on the Premises)
2. Regulated Entertainment

from 0500 to 1200 on that date, for up to 150 people.

 

The Panel Resolved:

 

That to allow the licensable activities stated in the TEN to go ahead would undermine the licensing objectives of public safety, prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

That it therefore considers it appropriate to give Counternotice; which has the effect that the licensable activities set out above (“the activities”) shall not be permitted

 

Reasons

 

The premises is operated (for relevant purposes) as a night club

It is situated at the North West corner on the Millmead Industrial Estate, at the far corner from its entrance. Hence, while the TEN states that the nearest neighbours are over 1km away with regard to patrons exiting the site, the nearest residential properties are in fact about 100m away on the other side of a railway line and an elevated section of Watermead Way.

The existing premises Licensee is Pirates Grog Rum Limited, and designated premises supervisor (DPS) is Gareth Noble.

The operating schedule permitted by the existing licence is as follows:

 

Live Music

Wednesday to Thursday              1800 to 2330

Friday to Sunday               1800 to 0000

Recorded Music

Monday to Wednesday                 1800 to 2330

Friday                                1800 to 0500

Saturday                            1200 to 0500

Sunday                                        1200 to 0300

Supply of Alcohol – ON Sales

Wednesday to Thursday              1800 to 2300

Friday                                1800 to 0430

Saturday                            1200 to 0430

Sunday                                        1200 to 0230

Supply of Alcohol – OFF Sales Online Only

Monday to Friday               1000 to 1800

Saturday                            1200 to 0430

Sunday                                        1200 to 0230

 

The opening hours of the premises:

Wednesday to Thursday              1800 to 2330

Friday                                1800 to 0500

Saturday                            1200 to 0500

Sunday                                        1200 to 0300

 

Licensing

 

Licensing raised a number of questions to clarify the nature of the event and the arrangements to be made.  Would patrons be allowed to drink non-stop; what medical provision would be in place; what safeguarding  and welfare provision would be in place for staff and patrons.

 

Responsible authorities

 

Objections were made by two Responsible Authorities: the Police, and the Local Authority Noise Team (“Noise”) on the grounds that the licensing objectives would be undermined.  The Police particularly drew attention to the fact that if no counternotice were served, the premises would have the opportunity to be open continuously for 39 hours.

At the hearing, Noise raised concerns about public nuisance, in particular noise during Sunday morning when the ambient noise level is low and noise carries further, and patrons arriving and leaving; public safety and crime and disorder.

 

The officer also pointed out (in response to the Licensee’s comments) that there was no requirement for First Aid or welfare training for the SIA qualification.

 

The Police were concerned at the potential for patrons drinking and possibly taking illegal substances over a period of 39 hours and the impacts on public safety, crime and disorder and the safety of both staff and patrons.

 

The Licensee

 

The DPS explained that Wiggle, the event per se, was an electronic music event that would last from 5am until maybe 1 or 2pm on the Sunday.  He expected it would involve a number of different performers, appealing to different groups of people.  He expected an attendance of maybe 175 people, but probably 150 people.  He expected the patrons to include hospitality staff and others working through the night who’d be looking for a place to go after work, and people who’d been to parties finishing in the earlier morning.

He would rely upon his SIA staff provider to provide medical and welfare services to patrons and staff.

 

He had not considered having the event stop for an hour for a clear-up and reset to break up the period so that patrons didn’t remain the whole 39 hours; he thought it a good idea, but he had no plans to deals with patrons who loitered on the estate and then sought readmission beyond possibly having extra SIA staff to patrol the estate.

 

He was asked about how he’d deal with taking illicit drugs from individuals trying to bring them into the venue and what would be done with them after confiscation.  Beyond putting them in evidence bags, he did not know – he didn’t know whether he was supposed to ask the Police to come round to collect them or whether they would come to him.

 

The Panel

 

The Panel retired and considered the TEN and evidence given.

The Panel felt that it would be artificial to consider the 5 hour TEN in isolation and that it was appropriate to consider it together with the existing licensed hours making an unbroken period of 39 hours from Saturday noon until Monday morning.  The participants in the hearing, including the Licensee, had approached it on this basis.

 

The Panel felt that the DPS had not given any serious thought to the matters raised at the hearing about an event of significant size and length.  He appeared to be unprepared, and had no existing plans to deal with those matters.  He had stated that “part of coming on and talking to [the Panel] is to understand if we were to go ahead with this, the best way to do that”.  That should not be the function of a TEN hearing.

 

The Panel had particular concerns about the DPS approach to:

·       Public health – the safety of both patrons and staff

·       Attendance –he expected probably 150, which is the limit mentioned in the TEN, and indicated that his SIA staff on the door would have clickers; but he also mentioned a possible attendance of 175

·       Planning for separate welfare or medical provision

·       Dealing with drugs

·       Safeguarding of women and girls

·       Loitering on the industrial estate, generally and in relation to seeking readmission

·       Managing noise

·       Managing the potential for drugs consumption

The DPS did not appreciate that noise from the event would likely travel to the nearby residential areas.

Overall, taking into account all these concerns and others raised at the hearing, the Panel was not satisfied that the License had, or would formulate, sufficiently robust plans to deal with the concerns raised and uphold the licensing objectives for the 39 hours involved.

The Panel therefore resolved to serve Counternotice preventing the event detailed in the TEN taking place.