No |
Ward / Cumulative Impact Area |
Site Name and Address |
App Type |
Licensing Ref No. |
1. |
St James’s Ward / Not in Cumulative Impact Area |
Proud Embankment 8 Victoria Embankment London WC2R 2AB |
Full Review of The Premises Licence |
20/02301/LIPDPS |
Minutes:
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.5 (“Committee”)
Licensing Review Decision
Friday 15 October 2021
Membership: Councillor Murad Gassanly (Chairman), Councillor Jim Glen, Councillor Aicha Less
Proud Embankment, 8 Victoria Embankment, WC2R 2AB (“Premises”)
The
Metropolitan Police Service (Police) submitted an application for a Summary Review of the above
Premises pursuant to Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003 (the
“Act”) on 16 September 2021 as the Police considered
the Premises are associated with serious crime and serious
disorder. The Premises Licence Holder
(PLH) of the Premises is Proud West End Limited
The Interim Steps
Hearing took place on 21 September 2021, when the Committee imposed
the Interim Steps specified in the Schedule attached to this
Decision. The purpose of today’s
hearing was to review the Interim Steps taken and to determine the
full review by deciding whether it was appropriate and
proportionate to take any steps to promote the licensing
objectives.
Persons attending
the hearing:
For the Police:
Mr James Rankin (Counsel)
PC Adam Deweltz
PC Reaz Guerra
For the Premises Licence
Holder (PLH):
Mr Philip Kolvin QC (Counsel)
Mr Alex Proud, the PLH and the Designated Premises Supervisor
James Daglish and Niall McCann of Keystone Law
For Licensing Authority:
Karyn Abbott – Licensing Officer
Glyn Franks – City Inspector
For Castlebrooke
Investments Limited (Castlebrooke):
Gary Grant (Counsel)
Jack Spiegler – Thomas and Thomas
Simon Gibbs and Liam Burns of Castlebrooke
Other Officers
present:
The Presenting Officer – Jessica
Donovan;
The Legal Adviser
– Heidi Titcombe;
The Committee Officer – Kisi
Smith-Charlemagne
Activities and Hours
The Premises is a
venue which provides cabaret and other regulated entertainment,
including music and dancing.
The permitted hours for licensable activities are as stated in the
committee report.
The opening hours are Sunday to Thursday 09:00
to 04:00
Friday and Saturday 09:00 to 05:00
Prior to the Interim Steps hearing the Premises was permitted
extended opening hours on New Year’s Eve and when British
Summer Time changes.
REVIEW DECISION
In reaching its decision the Committee has had regard to the relevant legislation, the Secretary of State’s Guidance (“Guidance”) particularly in relation to reviews and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”).
Having carefully
considered the review application, the representations and
submissions made by all the Parties involved, both verbally and in
writing, the Committee has decided that in relation to its review
of the Interim Steps that it is appropriate, necessary and
proportionate to take the following steps: -
Review of the Interim Steps
Decision
1.
Not to continue to reduce the hours to Core Hours
for the licensable activities or the opening hours.
2.
To modify paragraph 2 of the Interim Steps
Decision[1] by stating that no private
Events booked by individuals shall be permitted to take place at
the Premises save that the pre-booked “all-star” events
specified in the Letter from Keystone Law dated 20 September 2021
shall be permitted to take place provided such licensable
activities are ancillary to a substantial table meal and a cabaret
performance on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday up to and
including 26 October 2021 for the hours specified in the
Letter.
3.
To modify the Interim Steps by removing Mr Proud as
the Designated Premises Supervisor on Monday 18 October 2021 at
5pm.
4.
To modify condition 3 of the Schedule to replace it
with the following condition, namely:
“The licensable activities authorised
by this licence and provided at the Premises shall be ancillary to
the main function of the Premises as a Cabaret Venue, except that
the following category of Events shall be permitted, namely:
Category 1: Events at which the sale and consumption of alcohol is
ancillary to a Substantial Table Meal and live performance-based
entertainment.
For the purpose of this condition ‘Substantial Table Meal’ means – a meal such as might be expected to be served as the main midday or main evening meal, or as a main course at either such meal and is eaten by a person seated at a table, or at a counter or other structure which serves the purposes of a table and is not used for the service of refreshments for consumption by persons not seated at a table or structure servicing the purposes of a table.
Category 2: Events at which the sale and consumption of alcohol is ancillary to the use of the Premises for patrons attending live performance-based entertainment and which are not Category 1 events.
Category 3: Corporate Events booked by registered companies, charities, statutory bodies, trade organisations and educational institutions.
5.
To add the
following condition to the existing licence:
For all category 3 Events, the Premises Licence Holder shall be
responsible for overseeing the Event and shall provide written
approval of each risk assessment for each Event before they are
able to take place. Such approval shall
be retained at the Premises and available for inspection by the
Licensing Authority and the Police.
6.
Conditions 54 and 15(b) of the existing licence
shall no longer be suspended.
7.
In view of the seriousness of this case, it is
necessary and proportionate for these Interim Steps to continue to
take immediate effect.
Full review of the
Premises
Further,
the Committee has decided that it is appropriate and proportionate
for the promotion of the licensing objectives for the following
steps to be taken in relation to the full review of the Premises,
namely:
8.
Mr Proud shall continue to be removed as the
Designated Premises Supervisor from 18 October 2021 at
5.pm.
9.
To modify the conditions on the existing licence by
confirming that the following conditions shall remain and be
attached to the Licence once the review Decision takes effect, as
agreed by the Premises Licence Holder:-
Condition
1
“The licensable activities authorised
by this licence and provided at the Premises shall be ancillary to
the main function of the Premises as a Cabaret Venue, except that
the following category of Events shall be permitted, namely:
Category 1: Events at which the sale and consumption of alcohol is
ancillary to a Substantial Table Meal and live performance-based
entertainment.
For the purpose of this condition ‘Substantial Table Meal’ means – a meal such as might be expected to be served as the main midday or main evening meal, or as a main course at either such meal and is eaten by a person seated at a table, or at a counter or other structure which serves the purposes of a table and is not used for the service of refreshments for consumption by persons not seated at a table or structure servicing the purposes of a table.
Category 2: Events at which the sale and consumption of alcohol is ancillary to the use of the Premises for patrons attending live performance-based entertainment and which are not Category 1 events.
Category 3: Corporate Events booked by registered
companies, charities, statutory bodies, trade organisations and
educational institutions.
Condition 2
For all category 3 Events, the Premises Licence Holder shall be
responsible for overseeing the Event and shall provide written
approval of each risk assessment for each Event before they are
able to take place. Such approval shall
be retained at the Premises and available for inspection by the
Licensing Authority and the Police.
Condition 3
No private Events booked by individuals
shall be permitted to take place at the Premises. For the avoidance of
doubt this condition shall not preclude Temporary Event Notices to
be submitted for events for individuals.
10.
To add the following conditions to the existing
licence as specified below:-
A. Conditions proposed
by the Police and agreed by the Premises Licence
Holder
Condition 4 - (MC99)
A copy of the Premises’
dispersal policy shall be made readily available at the Premises
for inspection by a police officer and/or an authorised officer of
Westminster City Council immediately upon request.
Condition 5 – (MC 96)
From 23:00 hours each day:
(a) All customers entering the Premises shall have their ID scanned
on entry, save for when a biometric scanning system is in
operation. The details recorded shall include a live facial image
capture of the customer and capture the photographic identification
produced. The details recorded by the ID scanner system shall be
made available to the Police and the local authorityupon
request.
(b) The requirement in (a) above is subject to the following
exceptions, namely that a maximum number of 10 guests per night may
be admitted at the Managers discretion without necessarily photo ID
being scanned and recorded. The admission of such guests however
shall be in accordance with the following procedure:
(i) The DPS shall approve in writing the names of a maximum of
three managers other than him/herself who are authorised to sign in
such guests.
(ii) A legible record (the signing in sheet) of those guest’s
name shall be retained on the Premises and available for immediate
inspection upon request by the licensing authority and/or Police
for a minimum period of 31 days. The name of the DPS approved
manager authorising the admission will also be recorded by that
manager.
(iii) Guests shall be required to produce some form of ID such as a
bank card (or emailed electronic photo ID) and ID scan entry with a
live photo shall be created.
(iv) Where there are appropriate reasons for a guest not to be able
to produce ID and be subject to ID scan, the Approved Manager may
still permit entry. In such circumstance he shall also record the
reasons for this in the signing in sheet.
Condition 6 - This condition shall
replace condition 13 on the licence.
Save for patrons going out to smoke in the secure and
sterile designated smoking area, from 22:30 hours each day when the
Premises are open for licensable activities all patrons attempting
to gain entry or re-entry to the Premises shall be subject to a
search before entry/re-entry as follows:-
a. All customers must go through a metal detector
arch.
b. All searchers must wear a metal detector mitt.
c. All bags
must be opened and searched thoroughly.
d. Any sharp objects must not be allowed into the
Premises.
e. Male and female door supervisors must be available to and dedicated to carrying out the search duties specified in this condition and the searches shall be monitored by the Premises CCTV system until the end of the permitted hours or until there are no further admissions.
Condition
7 - MC92
In the event that a serious assault
is committed on the Premises (or appears to have been committed)
the management will immediately ensure that:
(a) The police (and, where appropriate, the London Ambulance
Service) are called without delay;
(b) All measures that are reasonably practicable are taken to
apprehend any suspects pending the
arrival of the police;
(c) The crime scene is preserved so as to enable a full forensic
investigation to be carried out by the police; and
(d) Such other measures are taken (as appropriate) to fully protect
the safety of all persons present on the Premises.
Condition 8 - MC6
The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that:
(a) All licensed SIA door staff on duty at the Premises shall be
equipped with Body Worn Video (BWV), capable of recording audio and
video in any light condition as per the minimum requirements of the
Westminster Police Licensing Team.
(b) All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days
with date and time stamping, and
(c) Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon
the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the
preceding 31 day period.
Condition 9
Patrons
shall not be permitted on the stage in the main room of the
Premises at any time unless receiving an award at a bona fide
awards ceremony.
B. Conditions proposed by Premises
Licence Holder and where appropriate
amended by the Committee
Condition 10
The
Designated Premises Supervisor shall be employed full time at the
Premises.
Condition 11 – MC03
There shall be a personal licence holder on duty on the Premises at
all times when the Premises are authorised to sell alcohol.
Condition 12
The Premises shall be subject to a full safety and
security audit by an independent adviser at least once per quarter
starting on 1st November 2021. The
audit shall include all matters of security including but not
limited to risk assessment, search, identification, handling and
reporting of incidents and ejection. The result of such audit shall
be retained at the Premises and available for immediate inspection
by an officer of Westminster City Council or the Metropolitan
Police.
Condition 13
The Premises shall
not use any external promoters, and there shall be no externally
promoted events, for any event extending beyond core hours
being Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to
23:30 hours; Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to Midnight; Sunday: 09:00
to 22:30 hours.
Condition 14
All staff at the Premises shall receive Welfare And Vulnerability
Engagement (WAVE) training which shall be refreshed at least
annually. Evidence of the training
taken, and names of the trainer and participants shall be recorded.
These records shall be available for inspection by an authorised
officer of the Council and the Metropolitan Police.
Condition 15 - MC92
In the event that a serious assault is committed on the
Premises (or appears to have been committed) the management will
immediately ensure that:
(a) The police (and, where appropriate, the London Ambulance Service) are called without delay;
(b) All measures that are reasonably practicable are taken to apprehend any suspects pending the arrival of the police;
(c) The crime scene is preserved so as to enable a full forensic investigation to be carried out by the police; and
(d) Such
other measures are taken (as appropriate) to fully protect the
safety of all persons present on the Premises.
Condition 16
At all events extending beyond Core Hours, there must be a
dedicated member of staff monitoring the CCTV cameras at the
Premises at all times.
11.
The Committee added the following condition as
condition 16(d) to the existing licence:-
The Premises Licence Holder shall ask all organisers of Events to
confirm in writing when the booking is made whether the Event is to
be externally promoted.
12.
The Committee decided that the steps taken above are
appropriate and proportionate to promote the Licensing
Objectives.
Reasons
Preliminary
Matters
13.
At the start of the hearing the Chair introduced the
Members of the Committee, identified the Parties attending the
hearing who wished to speak and outlined the procedure for the
hearing. No declarations of interest
were made and all Parties in attendance were given ample time to
present their submissions.
14.
The Chairman noted that the committee agenda
consisted of the application for review together with a large
bundle of crime data in support of the Police review; a further
bundle of evidence of approximately 200 pages submitted by the
Premises Licence Holder; an additional statement of PC Guerra and
further CRIS data; a report from Shield; an additional statement
from PC Deweltz and an extract from the incident record.
15.
The Committee recognised that the Interim Steps
Hearing took place on 21 September 2021 and the Committee reviewed
the Interim Steps specified in Schedule One of this
Decision. The full decision appears
at pages 2068-2077 of the Committee
papers.
16.
The Committee was mindful that this hearing was a
two stage process, namely:-
(1)
To review the Interim steps and to decide whether it considers any
of the steps should be modified or remain in any way, and
(2)
To take such other steps as the Committee considers appropriate and
proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.
17.
Ms Donovan, Licensing Officer, outlined the summary
review application which has been brought by
the Metropolitan Police Service (Police) on the grounds that the
Premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder or
both.
18.
Ms Donovan confirmed that since the review had been
requested representations have been received from the Licensing
Authority (Ms Abbott), supporting the review and Castlebrooke
Investments Limited, who
purchased the lease of the Premises on 5 October 2021. The
Premises are situated in the St James’ Ward and do not fall
within the cumulative impact zone.
Submissions on behalf of the
Police
19.
Mr Rankin confirmed that the Police position had not
changed since the Interim Steps hearing which took place on 21
September 2021. In summary, the Police
are seeking the following steps:
- that the permitted hours for licensable activities be cut back to
the core hours, as specified in paragraph 1 of the Interim Steps
Decision; and
- a condition be placed on the licence that the licensable
activities shall be ancillary to the main function of the Premises
as a Cabaret Venue;
- that no pre-booked events shall be permitted to take place at the
Premises; and
- that nine conditions should be added to the licence, as specified
on pages 1963 and 1964 of the Committee papers.
20.
Mr Rankin stated that Proud is
a stand-alone Premises. The Police contend that the Premises have
been run in a way which has given rise to serious concern to the
Police for some time. The lease was granted to the Premises Licence
holder in 2018 and it was not long until serious incidents started
to occur. For example, on 1 June 2019,
there was an incident of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) which was
followed by another fight on 2 July 2019 when there was a stabbing;
six customers were arrested for violent disorder and several
robberies took place. At this stage,
the Police threatened to review the Premises unless its behaviour
changed. Mr Proud acknowledged that he had to do something and he
advised PC Hunter that he would cancel some urban nights even
though this would result in a financial loss to the business. Mr
Proud also accepted that the vast majority of hip hop and grime
events would no longer take place. This
was two years ago, but these events are financially lucrative and
they have continued to be held at the Premises.
21.
The trigger incident for this review occurred on 2
September 2021 (Trigger event”) and involved a drill
artiste. This took place shortly after
the Premises had been closed for 10 months due to the Covid-19
restrictions. A private birthday
party had been arranged for Mr Harrison, a well-known drill music
rapper. Mr Rankin stated that it would
not have taken Mr Proud too much effort to google Mr
Harrison’s name and this would have instantly revealed lots
of red flags about the artiste and music genre. PC Deweltz carried
out this exercise and he found lots of YouTube videos showing him
holding firearms, and promoting music videos referencing gang
culture. Mr Rankin submitted that we either believe Mr Proud that
he had no idea that Mr Harrison was this kind of person, or we
conclude that he knew he was high risk and this is why he had
arranged so many additional security for the night in question. The
Police consider that the PLH was unable to resist the easy money
expected for holding this event even though there was a clear risk
of trouble.
22.
As it turned out Mr Harrison was arrested on the way
to his own birthday party because he had a 6 inch knife secreted in
his trousers and he has since been sentenced to 6 months in prison.
This was the sort of person that Mr Proud wanted to entertain in
his Premises.
23.
A dispute occurred about 2:30.am over when the bar
should close. 20 to 30 people started fighting with the security
staff inside the Premises. They grabbed
bottles from the tables and used them as weapons during the
fight. A security guard was hit on the
top of the head with a bottle and another got thrown off the stage
and tables were also used as weapons.
The management waited 15 minutes until they called the Police, by
which time the situation had escalated.
The Police arrived quickly within 8 minutes when they found the
situation was out of control. PC
Dweltz describes at page 1994 the scene that he was faced with. He
found the crowd to be very drunk, he recognised a number of gang
members from his time in Brixton and Clapham. He regarded the
management performance as poor and dangerous. There was a 6-inch
lock knife found in the Premises. Mr Kolvin has said previously
that the knife was not found inside. However, the Police have spent
several hours checking the CCTV and they can clearly see that a SIA
doorman picked up the knife from the stage inside the Premises and
then handed it to the Police outside the Premises. This CCTV was
viewed by the Committee, who accepted that the knife was found
inside the Premises.
24.
Following the trigger incident, the Police requested
a meeting with Mr Proud the following morning at 8.am. However, Mr Proud failed to attend even though his
managers did manage to turn up, despite many of them working the
night of the incident. The Police found
the lack of Mr Proud’s attendance disappointing. The Police
also consider there were clear failings on the night in question.
Bottles should not have been left on tables and this was in breach
of condition 12 of the existing licence; CCTV confirmed that not
everyone was ID scanned. The second request for detailed CCTV was
not produced as quickly as it should have been..
25. It was correct to say that the Management provided a certain amount of CCTV on 2 September 2021. However, the Police submit that there was a delay in producing the CCTV requested on 11 September, which the Management initially promised to provide by 13 September. The latter was not produced on that date, the Police chased on 14 and 15 September and it was not produced until 16 September. The PLH states they were acting on legal advice not to produce the CCTV until a justification had been provided for Data Protection purposes. However, the Police say it was perfectly clear what the CCTV was needed for as they were investigating this incident and a subsequent allegation from a woman that there was a gun on the Premises. When the CCTV was finally provided the Police were able to confirm that the allegation about the gun on the Premises was a hoax call. The Statements of PC Guerra and PC
Deweltz explain the problems encountered.[2]
26.
In terms of the management of the Premises, the
Police have serious concerns that the Premises are being run badly
and they felt the management had not learnt from the previous
problems which occurred in 2019, when a review has been
considered.
27.
The Police also submitted that a number of
conditions on the licence had been breached and this has not been
disputed by Mr Proud nor the PLH, these breaches relate to:-
- Condition 12 failing to remove bottles from tables, which enabled
them to be used as weapons on 2 September and the CCTV shows many
patrons drinking from bottles and smoking inside the
Premises;
- Condition 13 the failure to search patrons properly, which
enabled a knife to be brought into the Premises;
- Condition 14 which requires all staff at the entrance,
supervising or controlling the queues
to wear high visibility jackets/vests; whereas a number of staff
were not wearing these jackets;
Condition 52 – all incidents were not recorded
in the incident book.
28.
The CCTV also showed that on 11 September 2021,
after the Trigger incident, patrons were drinking on the stage
area, dancing with bottles in front of security. Again, many
patrons were drinking from bottles and rolling cigarettes and
smoking. Patrons were not being searched on entry, this was despite
what happened at the Trigger incident.
29.
Mr Rankin advised that the Police have no issue with
the Premises continuing as a cabaret club as such events are
generally low risk. However, the Police
do not agree that the four category of Events[3] proposed by the PLH should
be permitted as these types of conditions and events are
complicated to manage and enforce against. The Police contend that cabaret nights should be
permitted until core hours only and that no promoted events should
be allowed. The Police also consider
the nine conditions it has suggested in the papers should be
attached to the licence in order to promote the licensing
objectives. The Police consider this is
an appropriate and proportionate response to the issues which need
to be addressed.
30.
The Police stated that of the eleven private events
which were allowed until 1am as specified in the interim steps
decision; four were openly advertised online and yet the PLH did
not provide Police Officers with a risk assessment, as required by
condition 16(b) of the Licence. This
was another breach. Mr Proud’s
friend had a birthday party on 13 October 2021. The Police have
produced a statement which indicated that a couple left the
Premises at 1:10 hours (after the 1am closing hour permitted at the
time). They had a domestic argument outside the Premises and the
wife alleged that her husband put his hand around his wife’s
throat. This incident occurred pending the determination of this
review and the Police would have expected Mr Proud to have ensured
that no more issues would have occurred pending this review
hearing.
31.
The Police showed CCTV footage of the fight breaking
out on the night of the Trigger incident. The footage showed a member of the SIA security
staff being repeatedly kicked on the floor and patrons hitting
people with bottles. A member of staff
picks up the knife from the stage and puts it into his pocket. He
then hands it to the Police outside.
32.
Mr Rankin stated that at the interim steps hearing
it was alleged that some members of Police commended the management
for their handling of the incident.
However, the Police have made enquires and PC Deweltz confirmed
that the Police did not commend the management on the night in
question.
33.
In summary, Mr Rankin confirmed that the
Police’s position has not changed from the Interim Steps
hearing. The Police :-
? Want the hours for licensable activities cut back to core hours;
? Want the Cabaret condition to limit the activities permitted;
?
Don’t want any pre-booked events at all;
?
Want the conditions requested to be imposed on the licence.
?
Although after discussing the conditions at the end of the hearing
the Police made once concession by confirming that they were
willing to allow promoted events to continue up to the end of core
hours.
Submissions of the Licensing Authority
34.
Ms Abbott of the
Licensing Authority confirmed that they have submitted a
representation in support of the review because they have concerns
about how the Premises are managed and whether the PLH was able to
promote the licensing objectives.
35.
Mr Franks gave evidence as a witness. He is a Senior City Inspector who has
responsibility of investigating enforcement issues. Mr Franks submitted a statement dated 30
September 2021[4], explaining that he
interviewed Mr Proud on 26 May 2021, following a breach of Covid
regulations on 23 May 2021. He explained that the interview did not
go well and Mr Proud reacted badly and the meeting had to be
terminated. Two penalty notices
were served and £1,500 was paid in fines. On 3 June 2021 a letter was served on Mr Proud
about the incident and his behaviour.
Mr Franks confirmed in his statement that he does have concerns
about the management of the Premises as a result of the interview
of Mr Proud. Mr Franks also confirmed
that Mr Proud subsequently contacted the Council to apologise for
his behaviour at the interview. Mr
Franks felt that Mr Proud was under some pressure, and suggested
that Mr Proud should step back from his role as DPS. At the time of requesting the review, the Police
were not aware of the Covid breach and
Mr Franks submitted a further statement dated 5 October 2021 as
part of their evidence.
36.
The evidence produced by the Authority shows that
there was another allegation of breach of the COVID regulations in
2020, which was investigated and a written warning was issued to
the PLH. That breach was evidenced by
mobile footage and Mr Proud confirmed that grime music would not be
allowed. However, these types of events have continued to take
place as demonstrated by the incident on 2 September
2021.
37.
In answer to questions from the Committee about how
widespread breaches of COVID regulations were, Mr Franks stated
that during Covid, the rules were changing frequently. Some
premises followed them completely and some pushed the
boundaries. Mr Franks confirmed that
this Premises was not particularly unusual in the way it dealt with
the COVID regulations. However, he did
regard Mr Proud’s behaviour in response to the breach as
unusual. Having said that, the cabaret events held at the Premises did not
attract any sort of problem. He never
found any failings in terms of observance of conditions and there
was rarely a noise nuisance issue because this Premises was not
near to residential properties, although patrons can cause traffic
congestions when dispersing in the early hours of the
morning.
Submissions by Castlebrooke
38. Mr
Grant confirmed that his clients are the Landlords of the Premises
as they purchased the Headlease from the Council on 5 October 2021,
having exchanged on the lease in the middle of August
2021. Mr Grant advised that his
Clients were attending the review hearing to assist the Committee
as Castlebrooke believe they can better
supervise this Premises acting as landlords. Mr Grant confirmed
that Castlebrooke are concerned about the incident which occurred
on 2 September 2021. Mr Proud, as
the Tenant, has admitted a number of errors and breaches of the
conditions and Castlebrooke welcome him stepping down as the DPS.
Castlebrooke did not wish to praise or condemn Mr Proud, they
simply want to help to put steps in place to avoid any issues of
this nature, occurring in future.
39. Mr
Grant advised that Castlebrooke do not consider it is necessary,
nor appropriate for the permitted hours to be cut back to core
hours, because they do not consider the late hours are the problem,
but rather the type of high-risk events which have been taking
place. Mr Grant submitted this approach
would be in line with paragraph 11.20 of the Secretary of
State’s Guidance which says when deciding what remedial
action to take the Licensing Authority :-
“…….should so far as possible seek to
establish the cause or causes of the concerns that the
representations identify. The remedial action taken should
generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more
than an appropriate and proportionate response to address the
causes of concern that instigated the review. “
40. Mr
Grant stated that there are no significant noise nuisance issues;
there are few Premises in Westminster in this type of location
which are better suited to having later hours as the Premises are
away from residents; they are not located in the Cumulative Impact
Zone and they are near transport hubs which aides dispersal without
impacting on the licensing objectives.
If the hours were to be reduced this would have a financial impact
on the viability of the Premises and Mr Grant encouraged the
Committee to take these matters into consideration.
41.
Mr Burns of Castlebrooke emphasised that his company
have 15 years’ experience of running licensed Premises in the
Covent Garden area. They have a hands on approach to monitoring
operational management and meet regularly with their tenants to
discuss this. Castlebrooke always balances the objectives of the
tenants as against their obligations to promote the licensing
objectives and to prevent any nuisance. They want to engage with Mr
Proud and hold monthly meetings to understand all his upcoming
events and discuss whether they feel there are any concerns. In
response to questions from Members Mr Burns confirmed that there is
no operational management plan in place at the present moment but
they are keen to rectify this as soon as possible. Mr Grant also confirmed that whilst
recognising some conditions will need to be amended, Castlebrooke
support the general principal of additional conditions being
imposed as suggested by Mr Kolvin.
Castlebrooke would also be willing to check risk assessments of
events, if this were thought to be helpful.
Submissions on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder
(PLH)
42.
Mr Kolvin QC acknowledged that there was much to
criticise about the risk assessment which had been carried out and
how the Trigger event on 2 September 2021 was managed. Mr Proud
apologised profusely about what had happened and recognised that
when violent disorder takes place, the public, staff and the Police
are endangered. Mr Proud has tried to put things in place since
that time. He referred to his written
submission.[5]
43. Mr
Kolvin explained that this is a mixed use premises which was opened
by Mr Proud in March 2018. He has been trying to focus on a top end
entertainment facility and he has invested a lot of his own money
to promote this. It has to offer a range of entertainment in order
to survive financially. Mr
Proud has held approximately 1,000 events and entertained over
350,000 people. The events were varied in nature from cabaret
brunches, late night cabaret events, private parties, charity
events and externally promoted events. Mr Kolvin submitted that of
those 1,000 events, some 98% were trouble free. 2% of these (22)
have involved some sort of violence. Such violence ranges from very
low level common assault up to large scale violence. Of those 22
events; 18 occurred at externally promoted music events. Of the
remaining 4; one was the Trigger event
which was a private birthday and the others were externally
promoted events, where the Premises turns into a night club with an
external DJ. He accepted that the PLH needs to look at these
externally promoted events where they bring their own DJ and
entourage with them as they are often more high risk
events.
44. Mr
Kolvin contended that the hours should not be cut back to core
hours but rather he wanted to target the nature of events where
problems were more likely to occur. In
order to do this he has proposed conditions to be attached to the
licence which would allow four categories of events to take place,
namely:-
? Category 1 - cabaret lunches and dining – where the sale of
alcohol is ancillary to a substantial table meal and
performance-based entertainment -which he regards at low risk
events;
? Category 2 - late night cabaret events –
where alcohol is ancillary to performance based entertainment (with
no meal);
? Category 3 – corporate/charity events or for
trade organisations, statutory bodies and educational
establishments;
? Category 4 – events booked by private individuals.
45. Mr
Kolvin submitted the Category 1 events are low risk and have not
caused a problem in the past and included cabaret and dining events
which include a whole host of all star cabaret star turns including
Denise Van Outen, Bill Bailey and burlesque
performances. Category 2 events do not
necessarily involve dining but this is where patrons watch
performance-based entertainment. He considers these categories
should be allowed to continue for the entire licensable
hours.
46. In
terms of Corporate and charity events, these are varied in nature
including corporate fund raisers, charity events, award ceremonies
and drinks parties which he considered were low risk
events. However, he acknowledged that
some of these events are externally promoted. However, fund raisers
for cancer charities etc would be regarded as low risk even if they
are externally promoted. However, Mr
Proud recognised that externally promoted events do pose greater
risk so the key would be to properly risk assess the event to see
whether or not it should be permitted.
He suggested that the Police could even be given notice of the
event but it was acknowledged that this would involve a lot of
extra work for the Police as these events are common.
47. Next were Category 4 events – which could include private
parties for a young person or an elderly person. There would be different risks depending on the
nature of the event. For example Mr
Kolvin suggested that one would not
consider a birthday party for a 70-year-old to be a risky
event. He considered these events
should be permitted to take place, subject to a proper risk
assessment being carried out and subject to the Police not
objecting. It was generally recognised that externally promoted
events are more high risk depending on the nature of events which
are proposed and Mr Proud is proposing to reduce these events but
he wants to be able to allow some. In
addition to risk assessing the events, Mr Kolvin stated that the
PLH is offering a number of additional conditions which he
considers will address the issues raised and promote the licensing
objectives as set out on pages 36 to 39 of the additional
papers. This includes a condition that
the events will be cabaret focused apart from for the four
categories mentioned above.
48. Mr
Kolvin analysed the criminal incidents produced by the Police and
he contended that these types of incidents have been reducing from
2019 when there were 17 to two in 2021.
The first relating to the Trigger incident on 2 September 2021 and
the second, being an allegation of a sexual assault (a lady was
slapped on the bottom) which could not be substantiated.
49. Mr
Kolvin advised that Mr Proud operates three licensed venues. They
are all well-maintained Premises accommodating a mix of uses
including entertainment, dining and late night licensable
activities. Mr Kolvin outlined the
support and contribution Mr Proud had made to the
community. That he has spent his
own money to ensure the businesses survive, particularly during the
pandemic and Mr Kolvin referred to the Committee to the history of
the Premises as stated in the additional papers. The high-risk
events have been reduced and the levels of crime have dropped. Mr
Proud has ceased his involvement with a list of promoters in July
2019. He removed more promoters in May 2021. In July 2021 he made
the move to remove these kinds of events with Proud
Lates.
50. Mr
Kolvin explained what happened regarding the COVID breach of the
regulations in May 2021. Mr Proud fully accepts that he reacted
badly at the time of the interview with Mr Franks. Mr Kolvin stated he was not making any excuses for
that behaviour. The business had been
locked down until 19 July and was on its knees. The public wanted to go out and enjoy
themselves but breaches did occur. At
the time Mr Proud was facing the loss of his venue and
insolvency. In truth he just snapped
but within 90 minutes of Mr Franks leaving he had written an
apology and did not contest the notice of penalties. He accepts that the officers were just doing their
job. Since that incident the PLH has
moved away from promoted events and was focusing on cabaret-led
events. Proud Lates was also introduced
and the venue was offering more charity or corporate events and
this approach was largely successful.
51.
Turning to the Trigger incident which caused this
review and which took place on the evening of 2 September 2021. Mr Kolvin explained that the event was
risk assessed and extra security was provided but it wasn’t
considered to be high risk because they did not
discover that this was an externally advertised event. It
was a birthday party for a well-known artiste. They were expecting 300/350 guests but 380 patrons
attended. 30 SIA
security staff were engaged to cover this event, which was more
than required by the Licence which required 4 to be provided. The
PLH arranged a guard dog to be provided that night. There were
about 40 staff on duty on the Premises as well as the DPS
himself. It was accepted
that the security team did not carry out searches properly and that
the knife which was handed to the Police after the fight could have
got into the Premises. The management
was also deficient in allowing patrons to congregate on stage and
allowing bottles to be left on tables.
52.
The whole event ran off without incident until the
music was turned off. Just after 2:30/3:00 hours when a large fight
occurred, as evidenced by the social media clip. Mr Kolvin
submitted that the security did their best, but the Police were
required, and the management called the Police who came and
restored order. Mr Proud accepts that mistakes were made and that
he has to change the profile of the events held at the Premises to
more cabaret-led entertainment and low risk events. This is why the PLH has offered conditions that
the Premises can only be used for the four categories of events in
its conditions.[6]
It has also offered a condition that the Premises shall not run any
events which promote drill or grime genres.[7]
53. Mr
Kolvin also referred to the incident which occurred after his
friend’s private party on Wednesday 13 October 2021,stated
that the private birthday party which took place for a friend did
proceed quietly. This event
finished at 12:48 hours. The organisers were collecting up
belongings and a couple left. Unfortunately, they had a big
argument on the pavement and the woman called the Police as she
said that the man put his hands around her throat. The lady was allowed back in the Premises to wait
for the Police to arrive. This was an
unfortunate incident but could happen at any late night
venue.
54.
Mr Kolvin submitted that this review offers the
opportunity to improve security and the safety of the venue. Mr
Kolvin said the Committee must take a proportionate response and he
invited the Committee to:-
(1) remove Mr Proud as the DPS, as Mr Proud recognises that a
different DPS should be appointed;
(2) attach a number of additional conditions to the licence as
specified in the additional papers to promote the licensing
objectives, as may be amended by the Committee as it considers
appropriate[8]; and
(3) to give a strong written warning to the PLH that if this sort
of thing happens again more severe steps will be taken.
55.
In support of these suggestions Mr Kolvin asked the
Committee to have regard to the following factors:-
- Mr Proud has voluntarily decided to step down as DPS as he
recognises that the venue needs to adopt a new focus of
events.
- There was no concealment of the incident, the management called
the Police as soon as they realised that they could not control the
incident. This is what venues are
supposed to do.
- The DPS also reported the incident to the Licensing Authority
before 7.am on the morning of the incident and offered to provide
CCTV.[9]
- The PLH invited the Police to review the CCTV at the
Premises.
- The PLH made diligent disclosure of the additional CCTV
requested.
- Mr Proud unilaterally cancelled “Proud Lates” once
the incident occurred which meant a loss of £100,000 pending
determination of this review.
- The PLH produced an action plan by 16 September 2021 to ensure no
further incident occurred which was intended to be for discussion
with the Police.
- The PLH repeatedly asked the Police for a further discussion to
improve their action plan.
- The PLH appointed a new security company.
- The PLH appointed the Shield Association for an independent
review of the operation.
- Proper risk assessments and policies will be carried out and they
will agree to a condition to that effect.
56.
Mr Kolvin does not consider it is necessary or
proportionate to reduce the hours to core hours or to prohibit all
externally promoted events from taking place. Mr Proud proposes to
risk assess the different category of events, to promote more
cabaret and entertainment events and to steer clear of certain
types of music genres whist applying all the proposed conditions
offered by the PLH, which he considers should promote the
licensing objectives.
57.
The Committee and Mr Kolvin had a long discussion
about the conditions which it was
proposed should be attached to the licence in order that they are
not inconsistent with the existing conditions on the
licence. Mr Kolvin was grateful for the
conditions list provided by the Committee’s Legal Adviser,
which incorporates all the various conditions proposed by the
parties and possible amendments needed to the existing conditions
which was circulated by the Committee’s Leal Adviser prior to
the hearing.
Conditions discussion
58.
Mr Rankin advised that the Police do not agree the
conditions proposed by the PLH, apart from the conditions which are
the same as those requested by the Police. The Police maintained their view that the
hours should be limited to core hours because the later the hour,
the more likely that crime and disorder problems will occur as has
been demonstrated by the trigger event.
Mr Proud has made a series of promises going back to August 2019
and it has transpired that they were empty promises. The
Police’s view is that Mr Proud knew full well that the
trigger birthday party was potentially a problem but he still
allowed the event to take place at the Premises. The Police consider there should be no promoted or
private events and any events which do take place should be cabaret
led. The Police consider that the 4 categories condition is too
complicated to enforce. The Police would be prepared to allow
cabaret with a substantial table meal until 1:00 hours. Further, after some discussion the Police agreed
that as there is a mixture of events, some of which might be low
risk they would be prepared for appropriate promoted events to take
place up to core hours.
59.
In terms of the conditions proposed by the Police,
Mr Kolvin stated that :-
- the PLH agreed the licensable activities should be ancillary to
the main function of the Premises as a cabaret venue except that
the PLH wanted this condition to be subject to the Premises being
able to offer the four category of events specified in paragraphs
44 to 49 above.
- the PLH agreed to providing a dispersal policy in the form of
Model Condition 99.
- Proposed condition 3 in relation to ID scanners and
identification was agreed from 23:00 hours, which may require an
amendment to existing condition 12 of the Licence.
- conditions 4 and 5 were not agreed as the PLH would like the
ability to have private events, including birthday parties and some
externally promoted events.
- Condition 6 in relation to assaults was also agreed, which is
condition MC92.
- condition 7 (MC07) was not agreed.
- the use of body cams for SIA staff was agreed, which is similar
to MC6.
- the PLH agrees with the Committee’s Legal Advisers
suggestion concerning condition 9.
60.
With regard to the conditions proposed by the PLH, Mr Kolvin stated that:-
- they want the DPS to be employed full time at the Premises, as
opposed to at another premises owned by the PLH company;
- the PLH is happy to offer a condition that a personal licence
holder shall be on duty at all times the alcohol is sold;
- after some discussion the PLH agreed that their proposed
condition would be amended and amalgamated with condition 1
proposed by the Police to allow different category of events to
take place as specified in paragraph 4 of this Decision;
- proposed condition 3 would be amended as suggested by the
Committee’s Legal Adviser;
- externally promoted events shall be permitted up to core hours
and proposed condition 4 shall be amended accordingly;
- The Committee indicated that proposed condition 5 (prohibiting
drill and grime artistes) was potentially discriminatory so this
was not a condition which the Committee would impose;
- Proposed condition 6 (requiring patrons to pass through a metal
searching arch) was agreed as amended;
- Proposed conditions 7, 8, and 9 were agreed as drafted;
- Proposed conditions 10 (body cams); 11(no patrons on the stage);
12 (ID scanner) and 13 (monitoring CCTV) were agreed as
amended;
- proposed conditions 14 and 15 were no longer relevant in light of
the changes to the above conditions.
61.
Mr Kolvin also confirmed that the PLH would agree to
a condition that they would be responsible for overseeing and
approval of all category 3 events and that the PLH will be required
to ask all organisers of events whether the event will be
externally promoted at the time the booking is made.
62.
In summary Mr Kolvin contended that category 1
events (Cabaret and dining events which take place up and until
2:00 hours and category 2 late night cabaret events (called Proud
Lates) where patrons are not required to have food but must listen
to a live performance-based entertainment are not high risk events
and these should be permitted for the permitted hours on the
licence . The category 3
events (corporate and charity events – fundraisers, award
dinners, conferences) and category 4 events (private
bookings/parties) can be low risk such as a fundraiser for charity
but if they are externally promoted they can become more high risk
so this is why Mr Kolvin suggested that effective risk assessments
should be carried out to determine which ones should proceed as it
will depend upon the nature of the events taking place. Mr Kolvin even suggested that the PLH would be
open to the Police being served with notice of such events and to
have the right to veto the events.
However, the Police confirmed that a large number of these events
would be planned every week and it would be wrong to put the onus
on the Police (who have limited resources) to check each and every
event on a weekly basis when the PLH should have the responsibility
to do this.
63.
Mr Kolvin stated that the Police do not want any
category 3 and 4 events to continue. However, he emphasised that
the category 3 events (charity and fund raising events etc) have
posed no problems over the last three and a half years and in his
submission there is no reason why they should not be able to
continue. The income from Proud Lates and corporate events make up
about 50% of the income of the business, so these events are needed
to make the business viable. To lose the income from these events,
would push Mr Proud into insolvency and this would cause the loss
of 150 jobs. By taking a more targeted approach by removing high
risk events rather than cutting hours would promote the licensing
objectives. Mr Kolvin contended that rather than banning these
category 3 and 4 events completely, they should be properly risk
assessed to determine whether they can proceed or whether it is
thought they could involve violence/disorder, in which case they
should not be allowed to proceed but he wants the PLH to make that
decision.
64.
The Committee were concerned that private parties
(category 4 events) should be considered low risk bearing in mind
that the Trigger event happened at a private party. After lengthy discussion Mr Kolvin confirmed that
the PLH would be prepared not to have category 4 private events if
the Committee felt that would be more appropriate, on the basis
that parties could still take place with a TEN, where the Police and Environmental Health
would have the ability to object if they were concerned about an
event.
Conclusions of the
Committee in relation to the review of the Interim Steps and the
full Review
65.
The Committee adjourned the hearing to make its
determination and resumed the hearing to announce its Decision and
to summarise its reasons which are more fully set out
below.
66.
The Committee recognised that the purpose of
today’s hearing was twofold: -
(1) Firstly, to review the interim steps taken on 21 September 2021
at the Interim Steps hearing and decide whether it is appropriate
for any of the steps to remain in place or to be modified and if
so, whether such steps should continue to have immediate effect;
and
(2) Secondly, to consider what appropriate and proportionate steps
should be taken for the promotion of the licensing objectives in
respect of the review.
67.
The Committee recognised that the proceedings set
out in the Act for reviewing premises licences represent a key
protection[10] for the community when
problems associated with crime and disorder, public safety, public
nuisance or the protection of children from harm are
occurring. The Act provides the
Licensing Authority with a range of powers on determining a review
that it may exercise where it considers them appropriate and
proportionate for the promotion of the licensing
objectives.[11]
In deciding which of these powers to invoke, the Licensing
Authority should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or
causes of the concerns which the representations identify.[12]
The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these
causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and
proportionate response. Each case has
to be determined on its own merits, on the balance of
probabilities.”
The Committee also recognised that paragraph 11.24
of the Guidance advises that :-
When dealing with reviews in connection with crime, “
Licensing authorities do not have the power to judge the
criminality or otherwise of any issue. This is a matter for the
courts. The licensing authority’s role when determining such
a review is not therefore to establish the guilt or innocence of
any individual but to ensure the promotion of the crime prevention
objective.”
Interim Step Review
Decision
68.
The Committee reviewed the interim steps and decided
that Mr Proud should be removed as the DPS as he is not promoting
the licensing objectives for the reasons explained in this
Decision. The Committee also
decided that as there is clear
evidence that this Premises is not promoting the licensing
objectives, particularly in relation to crime and disorder, that it
is necessary, appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of
the licensing objectives to attach and modify the interim Steps as
specified in this Decision.
69.
The Committee recognised that the Trigger event was
serious and they were very concerned about the failures in
management, particularly regarding the breaches of conditions which
allowed bottles to be used as weapons and a knife to be brought
into the Premises. The Committee
concluded it was appropriate and proportionate to remove the DPS
for the reasons specified in the paragraphs below and to attach
these stringent conditions to the Licence. The Committee decided on this occasion not to
reduce the hours of the licence. The
Committee was very concerned about promoted and private events as
these can be high risk and the Committee decided that no promoted
events should proceed beyond core hours and no private events
should take place. In view of the
seriousness of Trigger event and the Committee’s concern
about the management of the Premises it considers that the Interim
Steps should be modified as set out in this Decision and such steps
should take immediate effect.
Review Decision
70.
Having carefully considered the large volume of
evidence from all the parties involved in this case the Committee
concluded that the Police were right to bring this review because
the fight which broke out on 2 September 2021 at a private birthday
party was an incident of serious disorder and serious crime which
does not promote the prevention of crime and disorder licensing
objective.
71.
The Committee also concluded that the event was not
properly risk assessed by the DPS or the PLH and noted that this
was accepted by Mr Kolvin on behalf of the PLH. The Committee further concluded that there
were failings in the management and the security team on the night
in question as it was clear that patrons were not properly
searched, as required by conditions on the existing
Licence. This allowed someone to bring
in a knife which the Committee agreed was found on the stage of the
Premises. Patrons were also allowed on
the stage and it was clear from the CCTV evidence that patrons were
drinking from bottles and the management did not attempt to recover
the bottles from patrons. Bottles were also left on tables which enabled
them to be used as weapons, causing one member of the security
staff to be badly injured by being hit over the head with a
bottle. These failures in management
also amounted to breaches of conditions 12 (bottles to be removed);
condition 13 (patrons to be searched from 22:30 hours); condition
16(b) (requiring risk assessments to be carried out for promoted
events and notice given to the Police).
Mr Proud was at the Premises on the night of the Trigger event and
he had overall responsibility for ensuring conditions on the
licence were met, as did the PLH.
72.
Mr Proud has volunteered to step down as the DPS
immediately as a result of the problems which occurred and the
Committee welcomed this approach. The
Committee was mindful that the removal of the DPS may be sufficient
to remedy some of the problems where poor management has been
identified[13] and as both Mr Kolvin and
Mr Grant consider the interim steps can be modified as part of this
review process, which can have immediate effect, the Committee
decided to remove Mr Proud as at 5.pm on 18 October 2021 with
immediate effect. The delay of three
days will give the PLH an opportunity to make an application to
appoint a new DPS so that the Premises does not have to close
completely.
73.
However, simply removing the DPS does not address
all the issues highlighted in this review. The Committee recognised
that the issues raised do not tend to arise when the Premises
operates as a cabaret-led venue, with celebrity stars performing
and patrons eating a substantial table meal. However, as explained by Mr Kolvin the Premises
allows all sorts of events to take place ranging from cabaret
lunches and evening dining events, to late night cabaret events,
fund raisers by well-known charities and other types of corporate
events and award ceremonies. However,
it also allows private parties, including the one when the Trigger
event occurred on 2 September 2021. The
Committee agreed that the “nature” of the events need
to be properly risk assessed, as does publicly promoted events
which may attract the wrong crowd and not promote the licensing
objectives. It was clear from the
evidence provided that birthday parties, corporate and charity
events may well be publicly promoted whereby members of the public
can simply apply for tickets online.
These types of events can be low risk but where they are publicly
promoted they are more likely to be higher risk events. The Committee does have sympathy for the
Police stance that they do not want any publicly promoted events to
be permitted. However, even the Police
recognise that a charity event which takes place in early evening
may well be classified as a low risk event and on reflexion the
Police were willing to allow publicly promoted events to take place
up to core hours, which the Committee has permitted.
74.
Having said that the Committee agreed that private
events should not be permitted as these can be too high risk as
shown from the incident which occurred on 2 September 2021, which
was a private birthday party. The
Committee also recognise that over the last three years the PLH has
not had serious crime and disorder problems at most of its late
night cabaret nights which can terminate at 2 or 3 in the morning
have not been running. Similarly, there
have been no problems with “Proud Lates” events so the
question arises as to whether such events should be curtailed in
any way. It is clear that when events are booked, the PLH needs to
find out whether the event will be externally or publicly promoted
so it has attached a condition on the licence to ensure that the
PLH properly assesses the event and notifies the
Police. The Committee agrees with the
Police that the onus lays with the PLH and not the Police to check
each event which will be taking place.
75.
In terms of the full review the Committee would
reiterate its concerns about the Trigger event, the breaches of
conditions and the failure of management and it considers the steps
it has taken in relation to the full review are appropriate and
proportionate, indeed, are necessary to promote the licensing
objectives especially in relation to the prevention of crime and
disorder. The Committee was mindful
that the Police wanted all events to be banned apart from cabaret
performance-based events or those with a substantial table meal,
however the review was caused by one incident where the PLH did
call the Police and it has to take a proportionate response in view
of the financial impact of other steps which were
proposed. The PLH made mistakes and but
going forward the PLH and his management team must take carry out
proper risk assessments to make sure that the PLH proactively
ensures which events can or cannot take place. The Committee also hopes that Castlebrooke will
monitor the operation more carefully.
76.
Having carefully considered the application and the
evidence before it the Committee decided it was appropriate to take
the steps specified in this Decision including removing the DPS and
modifying the conditions on the licence to address the concerns
raised and to promote the licensing objectives. The Committee considered that the steps taken were
appropriate and proportionate for the reasons set out in this Decision. The
Committee has sought to strike a proportionate balance, whilst
fully recognising the severity of the Trigger event and the
implication in terms of promoting the licensing objectives. The
Committee are also supporting businesses during the COVID
recovery.
The reviewed Interim Steps
shall take immediate effect.
The Committee’s determination in relation to the full
Review do not have effect until the end of
the period given for appealing against the reasoned decision, or if
the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is disposed
of.
Licensing Sub-Committee
15
October 2021
Schedule One – details of the Interim Steps taken on 21 September 2021
INTERIM STEPS DECISION
Having carefully considered the
application for an expedited review and the evidence presented by
the Police and the Premises Licence Holder, both verbally and in
writing, the Committee has concluded that the Premises are
associated with serious crime and serious disorder and it is
necessary to take the following steps: -
1.
To reduce the permitted hours for the sale of
alcohol (both on and off the Premises), all permitted licensable
activities and the opening hours to :-
Monday to Thursday
10:00 hours to 23:30 hours
Friday and Saturday 10:00 hours to 24:00 hours
Sunday
09:00 hours to 22:30 hours.
2.
That subject to paragraph 1 above, the terminal
hours for all licensable activities and the opening hours shall be
no later than 01:00 hours on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and
Saturday for pre-booked “all-star” events provided such
activities are ancillary to dinner (a table meal) and a cabaret
performance. For the avoidance of doubt all licensable activities
must cease and all patrons must have left the Premises by no later
than 01:00 hours on these days and for these events.
3.
To modify the conditions on the existing licence by
adding the following condition to restrict the operation of the
Premises, namely:
“The licensable activities authorised by this Licence and
provided at the Premises shall be ancillary to the main function of
the Premises as a cabaret venue.”
4.
To modify the conditions by suspending condition 54
of the existing licence with immediate effect. Condition 54 states :-
“Alcohol shall be ancillary to the provision of regulated
entertainment and or substantial food”.
5.
To modify the conditions by suspending condition
15(b) of the existing licence with immediate effect to prevent the
extension of hours for licensable activities and the opening hours
for British Summer Time. Condition
15(b) states :-
“Seasonal variations and/or non-standard timings:
(b) Occasional extended hours is permitted for British Summer
Time. Police to be notified in
advance”.
6.
To add a condition to the existing Licence stating
that :-
“No private events shall be permitted to take place at the
Premises save that the Premises shall be permitted to have the
eleven private pre-booked events listed in the letter dated 20
September 2021 from Keystone Law provided the terminal hour for
licensable activities and the opening hours shall cease no later
than 01:00 hours. For the avoidance of doubt all
licensable activities must cease and all patrons must have left the
Premises by no later than 01:00 hours at these private
events.”
In view of the seriousness of this case, it is necessary and proportionate for all the Interim Steps and for this Interim Decision to take immediate effect.
[1] See Schedule One of this Decision
[2] The CCTV timeline is at pages 1920 and 1938 of the committee papers.
[3] Pages 36 of the Additional Committee papers
[4] Page 2055 of the committee papers.
[5] In the additional papers
[6] Proposed Condition 2 on page 36 of the additional papers
[7] Proposed condition 5 on page 37 of the additional papers
[8] Pages 36 to 39 of the additional papers
[9] Page 128 pf the committee papers
[10] Paragraph 11.1 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance
[11] Paragraph 11.16 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance
[12] Paragraph 11.20 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance
[13] Paragraph 11.21 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance
Supporting documents: