342, HIGH
STREET, BANGOR, GWYNEDD LL57 1YA
To consider
the above application
Minutes:
Submitted – the report of the
Licensing Manager elaborating on the objection notices received from North
Wales Police and Gwynedd Council Environmental Health to the Temporary Event
Notice (TEN) received on 12 November 2015 from Mrs Susan Roberts in relation to
holding proposed licensable activities at 342 High Street, Bangor for three
days, as follows:
27 November 2015 from 11:00
to 03:00
28 November 2015 from 11:00
to 03:00
29 November 2015 from 11:00
to 23:59
It was noted that two options
were available for the Sub-committee, namely:
•
To do nothing and
allow the event to carry on as described in the temporary event notice; OR
•
To issue a
counter-notice, i.e. refuse the event in accordance with Part 105(2)(b) of the
Licensing Act 2003 if the sub-committee considered that this needed to be done
to promote one of the Licensing objectives.
In response to a member’s
enquiry regarding the number of licensed premises in the vicinity that were
open until 03:00, the Licensing Manager noted that Academi,
Mirage, Peep and Skerries were open until this time
on various days between Friday and Sunday.
The applicant’s agent
enquired when the objection had been received from Environmental Health. The
Licensing Manager noted that the objection had been received on 17 November
2015.
Inspector Brian Kearney
elaborated upon North Wales Police’s objection to the TEN and noted the
following main points:
•
That a meeting had been held with the
applicant on 26 October 2015 at Bangor Police Station where events, times,
security requirements and the need for fully functional and recording CCTV and
that the recordings should be retained for 31 days had been discussed. He added
that the process in terms of dealing with disturbances had been noted along
with the need to inform the police of such incidents. The police’s wish for the
premises to join Pubwatch had also been noted.
•
It was emphasised
that the applicant had been fully aware of her responsibilities following the
meeting;
•
Details of an assault that had taken place
at the premises between 01:00 and 02:00 on 1 November 2015 were provided. It
was noted that no first aid or advice had been offered to the victim;
•
That the CCTV
system had not recorded the incident as the applicant had not paid £9.99 to
save the recording on a Cloud system;
•
That the
application was objected to based on the prevention
of crime and disorder and in terms of health and safety;
•
He noted that the applicant had experience
of running a social club in Maesgeirchen, Bangor but
that managing an establishment in the city centre was completely different;
•
He had no faith that the applicant would
report any such incident nor did he have faith in the CCTV system's ability to
record.
Members were given an opportunity to ask questions of the
objector; in response the North Wales Police representative noted:
•
That the premises staff were not aware whether
or not the CCTV system was working and that it was required for someone to be
present to download a recording as the police only had 24 hours to detain a
suspect. This had not been available as the system was not recording;
•
That time had been spent trying
to ascertain the details of the incident; however, it had been made clear at
the meeting with the applicant what was expected of her;
•
That the schedule given to the applicant noted
the need to retain the CCTV recording for a minimum period of 31 days;
•
That the Police did not have any concern
regarding the number of security staff that had been present.
The applicant’s agent asked a number of
questions in relation to confirming the details of the incident to the North
Wales Police representative. The Inspector responded to the questions.
Gwenan M. Roberts elaborated upon Environmental Health’s objection
to the TEN on the grounds of preventing public nuisance and she noted the
following main points:
· That the unit had received a complaint via telephone on 9
November 2015 in connection with the noise levels of the premises in question
during the period 30-31 October and 6-7 November;
· That the premises currently operated under a TEN to hold
events but it was understood that a premises licence application had been
submitted;
· That a noise-related standard letter had been sent to the
applicant providing information regarding the complaint and noting that the
complaint would be investigated. It was added that the investigation was
currently ongoing;
· That discussions had been held with the applicant and the
unit’s willingness to negotiate in relation to the hours was noted as it was
felt that opening hours until 03:00 was too late. It was noted that the service
would withdraw its objection should the hours be changed to 00:00 on 27/28
November and until 23:00 on 29 November;
· That the applicant had been contacted again on 20 November
where it had been noted that the service would be willing to discuss a finish
time of amplified music of 01:00 on 27/28 November and it was advised that the
doors in the smoking area should be closed if this was the source of the noise
problem;
· Subsequently, a telephone call had been
received from the applicant’s agent noting that there would
be no further negotiation regarding the hours;
· Concern was expressed that further noise complaints would
be received if the events requested would proceed.
Members were given an opportunity to ask questions of the objector
and in response the Environmental Health representative noted:
· That 2 or 3 residential buildings were located near the
premises and that there were others in the vicinity;
· With regards to how loud music could be
played, that it depended on the background noise levels and on the proximity of
the premises to the affected properties;
· That the agent was concerned in
relation to reducing hours as the premises did not receive customers until
later on in the night. It was added that an email had been received from the
agent offering to amend the application to note amplified music until 02:00 on
27/28 November and until 11:00 on 29 November. It was noted, following a
discussion with the Police, that they continued to object as 02:00 was still
too late.
The applicant’s agent asked a number of questions
to the Environmental Health representative in relation to confirming the
details of the complaint received. The representative responded to the
questions.
The applicant’s agent noted
the following main points to support the TEN application:
·
That the
applicant had been working in the licensed field for 10 years and that only two
violent incidents had occurred during this period;
·
That the
applicant had attended a meeting with North Wales Police officers and that she
was prepared to collaborate with them;
·
That an attempt had been made to install an
operational digital CCTV system but that it had not recorded due to the fact
that the applicant had been unaware of the need to pay a fee. He noted that the
system was now fully operational;
·
That the
applicant employed three security officers whilst the guidelines noted a
requirement of 1 per 100 people;
therefore, she was acting above and beyond the requirements;
·
In relation to the incident on 1 November
2015, staff had not seen the incident and the applicant had not been aware of
it until late on 3 November;
·
That the victim had not informed staff
about the incident and thus no first aid had been offered;
·
In regards to the noise complaint, that the
applicant employed an experienced DJ;
·
That a number of
licensed premises were open until 02:00 or 03:00 and that asking the event to
end earlier would disrupt the night-time economy of Bangor;
·
That
Environmental Health needed to be fair and collaborate with such businesses;
·
That there was a general policy in Bangor
not to allow people into licensed premises after 01:00 and the applicant agreed
to act in this way;
·
That it was not mandatory for licensed
premises to join Pubwatch but that the applicant
would enrol;
·
The need for the
police and the applicant to collaborate.
The applicant’s agent questioned his witnesses in
relation to the CCTV system and the incident of 1 November 2015. Members were
given an opportunity to ask questions and the witnesses responded.
The applicant’s agent was given an opportunity to
ask questions of the applicant and she noted that she was applying for the TENs
in order to hold events as it had not been possible to transfer the premises
licence into her name as the former licensee had gone bankrupt. She noted that
an application for a full licence had been made for the future.
The Licensing Manager drew attention to the fact that the provision of regulated entertainment box under the licensable activities heading had not been ticked on the application form. The applicant confirmed that it needed to be ticked and as the observations provided by the objectors had been prepared on the grounds that the applicant had requested entertainment in all three applications, it was agreed to consider the application including these requirements.
Supporting documents: