To consider an objection by the Police Licensing Officer to a Temporary Event Notice for the HQ Sports Bar, Units 5 & 6 Grove Park, Court Drive, Dunstable, Beds.

 

The Sub-Committee considered a report from the Head of Public Protection which asked Members to consider an objection from Bedfordshire Police to a temporary event notice (TEN) given by the premises user for the HQ Sports Bar, Units 5 & 6 Grove Park, Court Drive, Dunstable, Bedfordshire. 

 

The meeting also had before it the following documents which had been attached as Appendices A – E to the above report:

 

·         the premises user’s application form for a TEN, in the approved format

·         the Bedfordshire Police email setting out the reasons for its objection to the TEN

·         the action plan agreed between Bedfordshire Police and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), who was also the premises user, which had been introduced following violent incidents at the Bar and related police concerns

·         an extract from the guidance document issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 which dealt with the arrangements relating to TENs

·         Annex 2 to the premises licence.

 

Members noted that the HQ Sports Bar was currently licensed to serve alcohol through Saturday evening until 3.30 a.m. on a Sunday morning.  During this time televised sporting events were shown.  The TEN given to the Council by the premises user/DPS sought an extension to the Bar’s licensing hours until 08.00 a.m. on the morning of Sunday, 3 May for that morning only.  The extension was sought so that the Bar could show an American boxing match on television; the match having an estimated start time of approximately 04.00 a.m. (British Summer Time).

 

The Chairman introduced himself and the other Members present.  The officers, Bedfordshire Police representatives, the premises user/DPS and the Director of the Bar then introduced themselves.

 

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed.

 

The Bedfordshire Police Licensing Officer read from an Internal Memorandum dated 12 March 2015 which set out in full the reasons for the police objection to the TEN.  Reference was made in particular to the youth and inexperience of the premises user/DPS and her management team which was demonstrated by reports of underage drinking, a failure to have read the licence conditions and the poor behaviour of various members of staff as demonstrated by reports of staff preventing the police from entering the Bar, watching television on duty, not displaying their door staff registration and being generally uncooperative.  In addition, incidents of violence had taken place on 26 February, 1 March and 8 March 2015; the last two incidents following the signing of an action plan drawn up by the police and signed by the premises user as DPS on 26 February 2015, with effect from 27 February.  Patrons had been seen leaving the Club with glasses, families had been present when violence had taken place and an incident arising from an argument over snooker had resulted in four arrests and someone suffering from a broken eye socket.  The Police Licencing Officer added that the premises user/DPS had attempted to allocate some responsibility for the disorder on 1 March to the lack of a police response.  However, the Police Licensing Officer stated that a large scale disorder incident was not the type of event that could be predicted to take place on a Sunday afternoon.  She concluded by stating that, based on the above, the police had concerns that that the premises user/DPS and her management team were unable to control the premises to an acceptable standard.  The police were considering making an application for the licence to be reviewed before they had been notified of the TEN.

 

A redacted copy of the Bedfordshire Police Internal Memorandum is attached at Appendix A to these minutes.

 

No witnesses were called and no documentary evidence introduced.  There were no questions by members of the Sub-Committee.

 

The premises user/DPS explained that the boxing match was a major sporting event taking place in Las Vegas.  The TEN was required because the Bar’s current licensing hours resulted in it being closed by 4.00 a.m.  She added that a plan to ensure full control on 2/3 May had been drawn up including the recording of patron’s names, ticket only entry, no glass permitted on the floor of the Bar coupled with the use of plastic bottles, doors to be closed all evening and four door staff on duty (two on each door), regular monitoring of external noise levels, the calling of last orders immediately following the end of the boxing match and all clientele to have left the Bar within an hour of the match finishing.

 

The premises user/DPS then challenged the police, stating that she was not aware of all of the concerns but would respond.  She referred to the police description of the incident on 1 March and stated that a 999 call had been made to the police but there had been no response by them.  She also stated that when she had met with the Bedfordshire Police Licensing Officer on 26 February she had made clear to her that the venue would be showing large sporting events.  Further, she had examined the CCTV footage of the incident on 1 March 2015 and, contrary to the police account, there had not been a fight but a scuffle and glasses had not been used as weapons. The Bar’s door staff were quickly present on scene and those involved were dispersed with only one person proving problematical. In addition the Bar’s door staff had been sent to the neighbouring Weatherspoons to assist in controlling any overspill of the disorder.

 

The premises user/DPS next gave her description of the incident on 8 March.  Again the Bar’s doorstaff had quickly intervened and the Bar’s Director had called the police and ambulance service and had given CCTV footage to the police within half an hour of their arrival.  One person had forced his way through staff to a group which had been taken outside the Bar and had been assaulted.  She added that a bar staff manager had been dismissed for being uncooperative with the police.

 

The Bar’s Director added that security and control measures were in place on the door, including ‘clickers’ to record the number of patrons and a logbook to record any incidents.

 

The premises user/DPS expressed concern over the comments made by Bedfordshire Police regarding the age and experience of both her and her management team.  She stressed that they had been open, had done their utmost to follow instructions and had fully acknowledged that they were in a learning process.  The premises user/DPS admitted that some errors had occurred but any police requests which had arisen as a result had been followed to prevent a reoccurance.

 

A Member sought information on the boxers taking part in the match and establish at what point in the schedule the bout was due to take place.  In response the Director stated that they were waiting to hear from Sky on the timing though given the high status of the match it would be the last of the evening and it was unlikely that it would be proceeded by many others.

 

No other witnesses were called and no additional documentary evidence introduced.

 

The police officer present stated that the premises user/DPS and her management team were not being penalised because of their age.  There was concern, however, that they appeared unaware of the full extent of the incidents which had taken place and that information relating to these should have been recorded in the Bar’s log book.  Further, he believed the Bar’s door staff to be employed directly by the Bar which was unlawful.

 

Turning next to the events of 1 March the police officer stated that an officer had attended the scene and had described the incident as extremely serious.  Further, other venues had shown sporting events without violent incidents arising and so the incident at the Bar, and the accompanying requirement for a police presence, had been totally unexpected for a Sunday.  Premises should not rely on police resources which were reduced on Sundays.  The police officer then commented that he had watched the relevant CCTV footage and it was apparent that the door staff had allowed glasses and bottles to be taken out of the Bar.  When he had visited the Bar some three weeks ago the door staff had been uncooperative and clickers had not been used to record the number of patrons.  Instead staff admitted estimating the numbers present.

 

The Chairman asked if there were any questions.

 

The premises user/DPS stated that, contrary to the police officer’s comment, she paid a Security Industry Authority (SIA) registered company to supply the Bar’s door staff and they were not directly employed by her.  In view of this statement the police officer indicated that he would carry out additional checks on the employment status of the door staff.

 

In response to the Chairman the Police Licensing Officer stated that she had no further comments.

 

The premises user/DPS then stated that she had heard, though without confirmation, that fights had also taken place at other venues.  She added that she was unable to respond to the extensive statement read by the Police Licensing Officer which had been unexpected.  The premises user/DPS explained that she had only prepared in respect of those concerns which the police had raised within their email dated 9 March 2015.  The Chairman, whilst acknowledging that additional information had been provided, reminded the meeting that this had been factual in nature and a record of what had taken place although he also acknowledged the statement contained more detail than that submitted with the agenda.

 

In response to the Chairman’s question the Council’s Licensing Officer stated that she had no further comments.

 

A Member queried the premises user’s/DPS’s claim that there had not been a police response to the incident on 1 March.  In response the police officer stated that one officer had attended the scene, that officer representing the normal police coverage in the area for a Sunday afternoon.  He did not enter the Bar but remained outside and attempted to stop the fighting.  However, the Bar Director disagreed with the police interpretation of events and stated that the officer had arrived approximately half an hour before the violence began and, although asked to stay, had stated that he was unable to remain because he was too busy.  There was not, therefore, any police presence during the incident itself.  Following discussion on the means used to contact the police and request assistance the Chairman stated that it appeared that there were two differing interpretations of the events regarding police attendance at the Bar on 1 March.  He then sought any further comments.

 

In conclusion the premises user/DPS stated that she and her management team were learning, gaining experience and had a good clientele at the Bar.

 

The Bedfordshire Police representatives had no further comment.

 

The Sub-Committee then adjourned at 2.40 p.m. to an adjacent room make its decision in private.  The Senior Solicitor remained with Members to advise as necessary.  The hearing reconvened at 3.15 p.m. when the Sub-Committee had finished its deliberations and could announce its decision.

 

On behalf of the Sub-Committee the Chairman announced the following:

 

Findings of Fact

 

That, prior to 26 February 2015, there had been incidents of disorder at the Bar which had resulted in the premises being placed on an Action Plan.  Since that there had been at least one further incident of disorder.  The premises user/DPS had admitted to a lack of experience which called into question the ability to control such a protracted event although the premises user/DPS had expressed a willingness to learn. 

 

Decision

 

That, following consideration of the information before it, the Sub-Committee had decided that the application for a TEN should be refused.

 

In coming to its decision the Sub-Committee had taken into account:

 

·         Section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003, which stated that it must take such steps it considered necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives

·         The Secretary of State’s Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003

·         Central Bedfordshire Council’s Licensing Policy

·         The merits of the application and the representations (including supporting information) presented by all parties.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The reasons for the Sub-Committee’s decision were as follows:

 

·         Prevention of Crime and Disorder

·         Public Safety

·         Prevention of Public Nuisance

 

The Sub-Committee believed that the level of experience demonstrated to date implied that the premises user/DPS was not in a position to provide the required level of control for the requested event.

 

Irrelevant Representations

 

The Sub-Committee had determined that the following representation was not applicable:

 

Bedfordshire Police had referred to an incident on 8 March 2015 but there was conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances.

 

Right of Appeal

 

The premises user/DPS would receive a signed copy of the decision notice within 5 days.  She then had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date on which she received the signed decision notice.

 

The premises user/DPS had no questions relating to the Sub-Committee’s decision.

 

The Chairman concluded by informing the premises user/DPS that if the premises licence for the Bar was made subject to review by the Council then the Sub-Committee formed to hear the review would be composed of Members who had not been involved in today’s hearing.  The Chairman also referred to the conflicting accounts of the events on 1 March 2015 and requested that Bedfordshire Police ensure that any information presented by it to a future Sub-Committee had been confirmed.