Agenda item

Report DCL/17/40 sets out the facts for the Licensing Committee to consider when a responsible authority applies to the Licensing Authority for a review of a premise licence. The licensing committee is the Licensing Authority acting in a role previously taken by the Magistrates Court. It is, therefore, not appropriate for officers to make additional comments other than in the capacity as a Responsible Authority under the legislation of the Licensing Act 2003. Therefore there are no comments from Legal, Finance or other officers included in this report.

 

Report DCL/17/40 sets out the facts for the Licensing Sub-Committee to

consider when a responsible authority applies to the Licensing Authority

for a review of a premise licence. The licensing committee is the Licensing

Authority acting in a role previously taken by the Magistrates Court. It is,

therefore, not appropriate for officers to make additional comments other

than in the capacity as a Responsible Authority under the legislation of the

Licensing Act 2003. Therefore there are no comments from Legal, Finance

or other officers included in this report.

 

Wai Tse, Environmental Protection Officer, presented the Licensing Sub-Committee with an overview of the report, paying particular attention to the following:

 

·         The premises were being conducted in such a manner as to prejudice the council’s licensing objectives, with the management being below standards that are expected in respect of premises operating in the late night economy.

·         Community Safety reports and crime reports were evidence of failure to promote the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.

·         There is noise pollution, loud music, screaming from patrons, which are in complete disregard of neighbours under the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objective.

·         A recommendation to include properly staffed door supervisors who adhere to public safety and who should all be SIA accredited. Currently the Door Supervisors do not manage the external areas adequately.

·         There are 13 active complaints in place, which mainly relate to the opening hours, noise and patrons being abusive towards neighbours and each other.

·         Mr Tse listed the Emergency Response Officers’ reports and detailed some of the breaches of the mediation terms.

·         Mr Tse detailed the ongoing complaints received from residents and how the reduction in the opening hours would help minimise these complaints.

·         Mr Tse provided a number of suggested recommendations which he thought should be agreed by the Sub-Committee and these are listed as part of the final recommendations below.

 

Beth Lennon (the Planning Officer) confirmed that the Council had received a large number of calls in respect of noise nuisance, which are in breach of planning conditions and the prevention of public nuisance. It is clear that the early hours enhance this noise and therefore do not promote the licensing objectives.

 

The premises are operating outside of the hours for which they have planning permission, which are 9am until 11pm and these hours are in place so as to protect residential amenities.  The evidence presented at the hearing, including that of Mr Lim, suggests the premises have been operating as a night club, which would need independent planning permission.

 

The Sub-Committee heard a number of representations:

 

Philip Carter, spoke as a resident and on behalf of the Leas Residents Association, stated that he and the Association did not object to the evening economy but did object to the amount of noise, abuse and anti-social behaviour that is related to the Bank Bar which, in a residential area is unacceptable. The Bar receives patrons migrating from the old town as it is still open. Residents are unable to sleep, enjoy their surroundings and therefore ask that the sub-committee review the license accordingly.

 

Mr Floria, resident, stated that he works unsociable hours so when he comes home late at night has been subjected to drunken abuse and is then unable to sleep due to noise nuisance from the patrons from the Bank Bar. He suggested the opening hours are amended or the bar is shut.

 

Miss Manoli, resident, confirmed all of the above comments made by the residents so far and confirmed that she has very little sleep when the Bank Bar is open, has received verbal and aggressive abuse, witnessed people vomiting and urinating in the residential areas and this is an inappropriate venue for this area. She walks her dogs and if they step on the broken glass left in the street from the bar who would be responsible for the vet bills?

 

Dawn Hardingham, resident, again confirmed all of the above and both her and her husband feel intimidated by the patrons from the bar and have witnessed drug taking. None of this happens when the bar is closed so it is clear that the issues only arise when it is open. They have heard fighting, loud noise and music which keeps both awake and as others have said they feel scared to leave their properties at certain times of the day. This is not the place for this kind of venue. They can clearly identify people around the back alley of Muddles Passage as patrons of the bar who are drug taking. There have been two police incidents in her building related to the bar patrons. She didn’t know how the original extension of the license hours was allowed.

 

Vanessa Summers, resident, stated that she often had her grandchildren to stay but has now had to stop this due to the noise, language and abusive behaviour that keeps her and the grandchildren awake. This is totally unacceptable in a residential area and agrees with all the previous comments made.

 

Zoe Bowden, resident, for 12 years referred to the comment by the owners that there is a witch hunt against the bar but insisted that this is not true and that any correspondence between residents is to help each other. She explained that many residents under report various issues. People had contacted the Environmental Health Officer to report issues but would then have to wait half an hour for them to arrive, sometimes at 2 or 3 in the morning; this then causes more distress due to sleep disturbance and so they don’t request that the EHO comes out. 

 

She said that on numerous occasions there are no staff present outside of the premises and has witnessed, as others have stated, fights, drug use and abusive behaviour, alongside drunks and parties from the bar. This is not the place for a “nightclub” to be, confirming that it is a nightclub and not a bar as the license says.

 

John Murray, resident, stated that although the music sound can rise and fall, it is not conducive to a good night’s sleep. These issues are really hard to report as it takes so long for things to be activated through the correct channels.

 

Mr Murray also stated, as others have, that there is a lack of staff presence at the door to the bar and agrees with everything that has already been said.

 

Emily Coleman, speaking on behalf of her mother, Jane Coleman, and brother who are residents stated that due to her brother being disabled she often sleeps in the living room to help her mother out. She has had little sleep on these occasions and on one occasion confronted the door staff which resulted in abuse. She has reported a number of issues to the police.

 

Mr Babulal Kotak, owner of a flat in the area, stated that it is difficult to sell the flat and that the bar is in the wrong place and should not be open. He stated it is a breeding ground for criminals.

 

Councillor Dick Pascoe, Ward Member, listed a number of reasons as to why this bar should be closed or the opening and closing hours should be reviewed:

 

·         Residential area

·         It is a nightclub and not as suggested a bar.

·         Numerous complaints have been recorded, 26 pages in the report.

·         Does not conform to the Licensing regulations.

·         No permanent doorman in view.

·         Crime and Disorder – drugs, fights, drunken people, noise all issues previously raised.

·         Lack of sleep – noise, abuse and foul language should not be heard or seen by children.

·         There is a complete breach of conditions.

·         Requested that the Sub-Committee shut down this bar and no Temporary Event Notice should ever to be accepted

 

The Sub-Committee then heard from the representative appearing on behalf of the License Holder:

 

Mr William Lim attended and informed the Sub-Committee that he was the bar manager for two years from October 2015 to November 2017. He informed the Sub-Committee that he had reported most of the incidents of crime and disorder to the police which included an attempted break in and racist abuse.

 

His mother is the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and speaks limited English and that is why she is not attending, she knows what is going on at the bar and delegates her DPS powers to the managers.

 

Mr Lim did not understand all of the residents’ submissions as he had not witnessed what had been stated. If these incidents were reported, he had not had any follow up meetings to discuss the issues with either the Police or the Environmental Health Officer.

 

Mr Lim did not agree that the Environmental Health Officer had reported that no door staff were on duty when they kept a record of who was on duty and a log is kept of any incidents that occur inside and outside the premises. There have been no visits to the bar to request this information. All events are risk assessed and determine how many door staff are needed.

 

Mr Lim stated that there had been a mediation meeting, with no residents in attendance and he believed he had actioned everything following this meeting. No follow up of this meeting has taken place. No visits from licensing staff throughout 2016 or 2017.

 

Mr Lim has never received direct complaints, emails or letters referring to any of the above resident issues.

 

Mr Lim engaged an acoustic specialist and the report features in the representation pack he submitted. Noise here seems to be a key issue. When he applied for this licence he asked for scientific measurements for music levels and never received an answer.

 

Mr Lim informed the Sub-Committee that 80% of his business is after 11pm and that he has requested a copy of the Licensing policy which he is still waiting for.He considered that there should be a balance between the needs of his business and neighbours. He also considered that it was the responsibility of local estate agents to tell prospective purchasers of adjacent property that there was a bar nearby.

 

Mr Lim set out his concerns that patrons, the majority of whom arrive after 11pm, are ‘preloading’ and often arrive at the premises inebriated, with later and later arrivals in recent years. Preloading is when people purchase alcohol from supermarkets and drink at home before coming to the Bank Bar.  When challenged by the Sub-Committee as to why he allows entry, he stated that it is often hard for door staff to tell and when he has made this clear to his door staff they do not always ask patrons to leave.

 

Mr Lim stated that an incident book is kept on site to record any problems that occur, however he was not aware that local people had spoken to door staff about noise and disturbances.  The incident book was not presented as evidence at the hearing.

 

Mr Lim made clear that he no longer works at the Bank Bar and the DPS is not on site.  He confirmed that the DPS speaks limited English.   He was not aware who has been managing the premises since November 2017, despite events taking place at the premises.

 

No further information was provided by the Environmental Health Officer or the Licensing Officer but the Planning Officer did confirm that in respect of planning issues the Bank Bar is listed as a bar and not a nightclub and if this is not adhered to then enforcement action could take place.

 

Following all the submissions, members of the Sub-Committee were given an opportunity to ask questions and the result of these are as follows:

 

·         Planning permission has not been granted for the premises to operate as a nightclub and if it is running as a nightclub then planning enforcement would need to take place.

·         Licensing officers have visited the site but not recently.

·         Notices requiring patrons to leave quietly are not displayed in or outside of the building and Mr Lim informed the Sub-Committee that they get pulled down by the patrons and it is hard to keep them on display.

·         Mr Lim was not aware of any of the issues raised by the residents which members of the Sub-Committee found hard to believe; he said there had been no contact with him or his family about noise nuisance or crime and disorder. He wasn’t aware of any residents speaking to his door staff and that if they have let in inebriated patrons he wasn’t aware of it. 

·         Mr Lim informed the Sub-Committee that the DPS for the premises is his mother who speaks little English and so employs bar managers to supervise the site. He has not been the manager since November 2017 and isn’t aware of the events they have had since November as he is no longer the manager.

·         If the DPS is not on site or in complete control then this surely is an error of judgement by the Licence holder. It was then noted that under the Licensing Act 2003, the DPS will normally be the individual who has been given day to day responsibility for managing the premises by the premises licence holder.

·         Mr Lim was asked to clarify how he would address the issues raised and he stated that the people who live in the area have to expect some degree of noise; it is hard to balance noise issues, staffing and abuse.

·         Mr Lim was asked to clarify how many issues had been put in his log book that relates to anti-social behaviour and the Sub-Committee was informed that although he could not confirm the exact number, there were a number of incidents that had been recorded whilst he was the bar manager.

·         The issue of the incident log book existence was called into question and Mr Lim had not brought the incident book along with him but he did state he would be willing to show all the incident books going over the two years should he need to.

·         It was clear that the Bank Bar is not being managed appropriately and this should be acknowledged. Mr Lim informed the Sub-Committee that trends have changed. Mr Lim described his patrons as arriving preloaded with alcohol bought in supermarkets. They usually arrived at between 23.00 and 23.30 already drunk. He considered that they would cause antisocial behaviour wherever they went. If the Bar’s hours were cut, the antisocial behaviour would occur earlier. He cannot control this.

·         In respect of security supervisors, Mr Lim informed the Sub-Committee that they sometimes have a lapse in judgement when dealing with issues. Mr Lim did not question the judgement of his door staff in identifying intoxicated patrons because it would be a slight on their reputation.

·         Again the question as to who actually runs the bar was raised and Mr Lim confirmed that his mother is the License Holder and is also the registered DPS. There have been a variety of different managers since November 2017. It was noted that the Bank Bar cropped up on the CSU group meetings regularly and Acting Sergeant Chris Stephens confirmed that there is concern for residents who have regularly been in contact with them; he has also engaged with door staff but is not aware any actions have been taken. He has concerns around management, day to day control, location and breaches of the licence.

 

The Sub-Committee asked Acting Sergeant Chris Stephens if he had anything to say and he approached the forum from the public gallery and made a formal representation. Acting Sergeant Stephens explained the crime reports that have occurred at this venue and the Police’s fear about how the bar is managed. He explained that if Mr Lim is unable to clearly identify who the manager was at present, this is very worrying to the Police. The incidents which have occurred have included a police officer being assaulted and only door staff being involved; management do not come out to talk to the police.

 

The Sub-Committee asked for officers and those who had submitted representation to sum up:

 

The Environmental Health Officer did not wish to add anything further other than that he felt the proposed recommendations should be agreed to improve the residents’ lives.

 

The Planning Officer again referred to the License of the Bank Bar as a bar and not a nightclub, as this would not have been agreed if applied for due to the inappropriate location.

 

Zoe Bowden, a resident, summed up on behalf of all the residents in attendance that no dealings or discussions had taken place with any staff of the bar or patrons due to residents feeling intimidated and scared.

 

The concern of all the residents is how the premises are run, who manages it and the lack of management. A restriction on hours would certainly be a step in the right direction.

 

Councillor Dick Pascoe said it was clear from the information provided and heard at the meeting that there is no clear management of the premises, no onsite DPS and insisted that the premises be either shut down or the recommendations put forward by the Environmental Health Department  be adhered to. He also suggested that no temporary events licences should be issued. He also said that it is advertised as a nightclub.

 

Councillor Tillson asked if everyone present had had a fair hearing. All agreed including Mr Lim.

 

The Sub-Committee thanked everyone for the time and care they had put into the meeting and then went into closed session to deliberate the decision.

 

Resolved:

The Sub-Committee is required to give comprehensive reasoning of the decision.

 

The Sub-Committee referred at great length to the issues surrounding this venue and the current licence. The Sub-Committee did not think it was for the owners of the properties to come to the management of the bar and complain directly; the managers of the bar should manage the bar in such a way it limits complaints and knows if its venue is subject to complaints. The lack of management, supervision and control at the bar is one of extreme concern. All warnings and conditions have been disregarded and this is unacceptable in a residential area. Our view is this behaviour is not proportionate and the Bank Bar must take a considerable proportion of the blame. 

 

The Sub-Committee looked at the volume issues, the seriousness of the effects of noise and the seriousness of all the crime reports including intoxication, use of drugs, abuse and fighting when reaching this decision.

 

Therefore the Sub-Committee wishes to suspend the licence for 3 months from the date of this hearing until the Bank Bar is operating properly.

 

Further recommendations are that the following conditions be added to those currently on the licence:

 

In line with the Council’s draft Licensing policy, where establishments in a residential area are concerned, the core opening hours will be the period during which customers are permitted to be on the licensed premises: this includes 30 minutes ‘drinking up’ time (Monday to Sunday: 10:00 - 23:30).

 

1.             To minimise the impact of the noise from the premises and from patrons leaving the premises, the current hours to be reduced in line with our draft Licensing policy. To reflect this, live and recorded music to cease and alcohol sales to cease at 23:00hrs and 30 minutes drinking up time so the premises will close at 23.30hrs. This is in line with the Licensing Objective: Prevention of Public Nuisance.

2.            A noise limiter to be installed and set at a level to be agreed with the local authority with the inclusion of a meeting at the most sensitive complainants property then the noise level to be agreed and then recorded as the set limit. This is in line with the Licensing Objective:  Prevention of public nuisance.

3.            A maximum of 10 patrons to use the smoking area at any one time. No inebriated patrons to be permitted within the smoking area. This is in line with the Licensing Objectives:  Prevention of Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder.

4.            At least one door supervisor who is SIA registered to be present at all times when the premises entertain live events/music instead of the normal recorded music. This is in line with the Licensing Objective:  Public safety.

5.            Door supervisors to manage the noise levels of patrons in the smoking area and limit the time spent in this area when not smoking. Door supervisors are also required to control patrons in the immediate vicinity of the premises to ensure that they do not cause noise or crime or disorder. This is in line with the Licensing Objectives:  Prevention of Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder.

6.            No alcoholic drinks to be taken outside the premises or in the smoking area after 21.00pm. This is in line with the Licensing Objectives:  Prevention of Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder and public safety.

7.            Patrons must be told before leaving the premises to be considerate to the neighbours. Permanent notices should be displayed in and outside of the premises to reflect this. This is in line with the Licensing Objectives:  Prevention of public nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder

8.            Install a double door system at the front entrance of the premise to limit the exterior noise leakage and seek planning permission where necessary. This is in line with the Licensing Objective: Prevention of Public Nuisance.

9.            The Licensing Sub-Committee requires that the Designated Premises Supervisor is on site to manage these premises throughout opening hours.

10.         That the current Designated Premises Supervisor is removed and a new appropriate DPS appointed.

 

 (Voting: For 3; Against 0; Abstentions 0)