Agenda item

Application for the Review of Premise Licence Mansfield Snooker Club, 119a Lincoln Road

Decision:

AB

 

DECISION NOTICE - LICENSING ACT 2003 SUB-COMMITTEE

 

REVIEW OF THE PREMISES LICENCE – MANSFIELD SNOOKER CLUB, 119a LINCOLN ROAD, PETERBOROUGH

 

21 AUGUST 2014

 

This Decision Notice refers to the review of the premises licence Mansfield Snooker Club, 119a Lincoln Road, Peterborough.

 

We have considered the representations made to us today and in writing in support of the review by:

 

  • Cambridgeshire Constabulary;
  • Pollution Control;
  • MANERP; and
  • Councillor Khan, Ward Councillor

 

The representations received were made in respect of the Licensing Objectives:

 

  • The Prevention of Crime and Disorder; and
  • Public Safety

 

In our deliberations we considered the various options available, these being:

 

  • To modify the conditions of the premises licence;
  • To exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;
  • To remove the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
  • To suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months, or; and
  • To revoke the licence.

 

We therefore agree to reduce the opening hours of the premises, known as Mansfield Snooker Club, 119a Lincoln Road, Peterborough from 8.00am until 3.00am and to modify the conditions of the premises licence to include those conditions as requested by the police as below and as agreed by the Premises Licence Holder:

 

  • 4; ‘CCTV equipment must be maintained in good working order, be correctly time and date stamped. Recordings must be kept in date order, numbered sequentially and kept for a period of 28 days’;
  • 5; ‘The Premises Licence Holder must ensure at all times a Designated Premises Supervisor or appointed member of staff is capable and competent at downloading CCTV footage in a recordable format and hand this footage over to the Police / Local Authority on demand’;
  • 6; ‘The recording equipment and discs / usb pen drives shall be kept in a secure environment under the control of the DPS or other responsible named individual’;
  • 7; ‘An operational daily log report must be maintained endorsed by signature, indicating the system has been checked and is compliant, in the event of any failings of the system actions taken are to be recorded’;
  • 8; ‘In the event of a technical failure of the CCTV equipment the Premises Licence Holder / Designated Premises Supervisor must report the failure to the Police or Local Authority immediately’;
  • 9; ‘Notices advising that CCTV has been installed on the premises shall be posted so that they are clearly visible to the public within the licensed premises’;
  • 10; ‘Staff training in relation to identifying and preventing sales of alcohol to any person who is, or appears to be drunk should be undertaken on a monthly basis. This training, together with on-going training to prevent underage sales (Challenge 25) and conflict management should be recorded in a written format and be available to an authorised officer upon demand’;
  • 11; ‘A refusals log will be maintained on a daily basis recording all refused attempted purchases of alcohol, carried out by drunks or underage persons;
  • 19; ‘The club will have at least 25 Members’; and
  • 20; ‘Members must be 16 years or older, once accepted each member agrees to comply with the rules’.

 

The Sub-Committee have also agreed to the implementation of further conditions requested by the police as below:

 

  • 3; ‘CCTV will be provided in the form of a recordable system, capable of providing pictures of evidential quality in all lighting conditions in particular face recognition. Cameras shall encompass all entrances and exits to the premises, fire exits and all area where the sale / supply of alcohol occur’. Although the applicant has upgraded the CCTV since the review application the Sub-Committee felt that an implemented condition relating to CCTV was relevant and required to assist with future offender identification;
  • 14; ‘No person will be allowed to enter or leave the premises with an open vessel of alcohol and the licensee will actively discourage and prevent anyone congregating or drinking outside the premises’. The Sub-Committee felt it appropriate to implement this condition due to the proximity of the premises to neighbouring residential properties; and
  • 17; ‘Under the rules of the club persons becoming members without prior nomination or application may not be admitted to the privileges of membership without an interval of at least 48 hours between them becoming members and their admission’;
  • and 18; ‘Each member may only introduce no more than 2 guests at any one time and no more than 2 guests in a 24 hour period. Guests name, address and date of birth will be entered into a ‘guest register’, with the name of the member and their members’ number prior to allowing any guests access to the club’;
  • and 21; ‘All members must show their card on arrival and they are also responsible for their guests’ behaviour. Each member (and guest(s) if applicable will be booked into the club onto an ‘attendance register’ which will be produced to an authorised officer upon demand’. The Sub-Committee felt that there were genuine concerns raised by the police in relation to the identification of members in the absence of the DPS.

 

The reasons for the Sub-Committee’s decision include:

 

  • The incidents of crime which have taken place at the premises after the time of 3.00am, both recorded and reported;
  • Lack of responsibility and management of the premises; and
  • The rationale behind the Police request to review the licence.

 

In relation to the conditions recommended by Pollution Control, the Sub-Committee felt that there was no evidence presented on which to base the addition of these conditions to the license.

 

The Sub-Committee’s decision reflects the evidence supplied by the police and the Committee did not feel that it was appropriate nor proportionate to reduce the hours of operation of licensable activities from 8.00am to 11.00pm.

 

The Sub-Committee feel assured that should further intervention be required this will be dealt with expeditiously by the relevant authority and it suggests that ongoing mediation between the police, the local community and the Premises Licence Holder be explored.

 

Any party in objection to the decision may appeal to the Peterborough Magistrates Court within 21 days of receiving this formal notice at:

 

Peterborough Court House, Bridge Street, Peterborough, PE1 1ED. Tel No. 0845 3100575. There is a fee to pay.

 

 

Councillor Thacker M.B.E.

Sub-Committee Chairman

 

Minutes:

4. Application

Review of Premises Licenses, Mansfield Snooker Club

4.1 Application Reference

069719

4.2 Sub-Committee Members

Councillor Thacker (Chairman)

Councillor Hiller

Councillor Davidson

 

4.3 Officers

Adrian Day, Licensing Manager

Darren Dolby, Licensing Regulatory Officer

Terri Martin, Licensing Regulatory Officer

 

4.4 Applicant

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

4.5 Nature of Application

Application Type

 

Review of Premises License

 

Summary of Application

 

To consider and determine an application for the review of a Premises Licence under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 for Mansfield Snooker Club, taking into account the representation made by Cambridgeshire Constabulary in their capacity as a Responsible Authority and the representation in support of the review by Peterborough City Council’s Pollution Control Team, also a Responsible Authority. There had also been representations in support of the review from the Millfield and New England Regeneration Partnership (MANERP) and a local Councillor in their capacity as ‘other persons’. The review was brought under the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety objectives.

 

A summary of the issues raised within the representations included:

 

  • Police had concerns that alcohol related violent crime and anti-social behaviour had increased remarkably over the 6 months prior to the serving of the review documentation.
  • The Constabulary requested that the hours of the club be restricted to 08:00-23:00.
  • Police believed that the premises was not managed effectively by the licence holder during the early hours of the day when he was not present and the staff on duty were ineffective in preventing crime and anti-social behaviour.
  • Although no recent noise complaints had been received, the Pollution Control Team noted that the licence conditions should be updated to prevent any noise issues arising in the future.

 

4.6 Licensing Objective(s) under which representations were made

1.    Prevention of Crime and Disorder

2.    Public Safety

4.7 Parties/Representatives and        

      Witnesses present

Responsible Authorities

 

Sgt. Haley Richardson, Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Dorothy Poecock, Pollution Control Officer

Karen Woods, Trading Standards

 

License Holder and Representative

 

Gohar Darr, License Holder

Alan Aylott, License Holder Representative

 

Ward Councillor

 

Councillor Khan

 

Other Persons

 

Brian Gascoigne, Millfield and New England Regeneration Partnership

 

4.8 Written Representations

Other Persons

 

Consideration was given to the written representation from Brian Gascoigne, attached to the report at Appendix D.

4.9 Facts/Issues in Dispute

Issue 1

 

Whether the update of the premises license conditions would further support the ‘Prevention of Crime and Disorder’ Licensing Objective.

 

Issue 2

 

Whether the update of the premises license conditions would further support the ‘Public Safety’ Licensing Objective.

4.10 Oral Representations

The Regulator Officer addressed the Sub-Committee and outlined the main points with regards to the application. The key points raised in the address included the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and the Public Safety.

 

Responsible Authorities

 

Sgt. Haley Richardson, representative for Cambridgeshire Constabulary, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points raised during her address, and following questions from the Sub-Committee and License Holder and his representative, were as follows:

 

  • The request for a review came after a significant increase in instances of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour at the premises.
  • The snooker club had the most recorded instances of violent crimes out of all similar establishments in the zone.
  • Compliance visits had failed to improve the situation and the licensing objectives were not being upheld.
  • There had been nine violent crimes recorded in six months, and the CCTV at the premises was of poor quality, however since the review application the CCTV quality had improved.
  • The extensive crime notes had made it clear that staff working at the bar were unaware which customers were in the premises, and membership was not being enforced, making it hard to identify individuals immediately after the crime had been committed.
  • Officers had not had access to the membership log book.
  • According to crime statistics, there had been reports from earlier than 03:00, even though the majority were between 03:00 and 07:00.
  • The Constabulary were supportive of the venue being run correctly during the day time.
  • The exhibit provided by the license holder and the data contained therein was inaccurate and contradicted police statistics.

 

License Holder & License Holder Representative

 

Gohar Darr, the License Holder, and Alan Aylott, the License Holder representative, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points raised during his address, and questions from the Sub-Committee, were as follows:

 

  • The police had not had issues with the CCTV since the upgrade of the cameras.
  • There was a membership list available, and all names of people involved in incidents and membership numbers had been handed to police when requested.
  • The license holder has not worked in the club for several years, but was always available if there were any problems in the club. Many troublemakers were banned in the first instance.
  • Other staff were trained in how to handle customers that were difficult.
  • Most customers finish their drinks inside the club.
  • When the license was first applied for, there weren’t as many residential areas nearby.
  • The detailed crime reports had not been supplied by the police, therefore the results of allegations and reports were not available to the committee.
  • Some accusations were shown by CCTV to be unsubstantiated.
  • Oftentimes crimes linked to the club had not occurred on the club premises.
  • Mediation should have been taken prior to the matter being referred to licensing.
  • CCTV footage had never been deleted.
  • Were live music to be played on the premises, a noise limiter could be installed.
  • No residents had complained to the club directly.
  • Any steps taken must be proportionate and appropriate to ensure the licensing objectives are reached.
  • The condition regarding CCTV was inappropriate as the CCTV had been already upgraded.
  • Many other conditions are dealt with by other legislation.
  • Very few people come to the club in the early hours of the morning, therefore hiring door staff for such a small amount of people was not financially viable.
  • Few of the people who come in the early hours of the morning were drinking. Most were restaurant owners, taxi drivers, etc. who came in after finishing work.

 

Responsible Authorities

 

Dorothy Poecock, the Pollution Control Officer outlined the points with regard to the application. The key points raised during her address, and questions from the Sub-Committee, the License Holder and his representative were as follows:

 

  • No noise complaints had been received since 2012.
  • Some licensing conditions on various premises around the city needed updating if they were imprecise or difficult to uphold.

 

Ward Councillor

 

Councillor Khan, the ward councillor, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points made during his address, and questions from the Sub-Committee, the License Holder and his representative were as follows:

 

  • Many residents had simply grown tired of complaining about noise complaints, as they felt nothing was being done, but the ward councillor received complaints personally.
  • Residents quality of life had been significantly negatively affected by the noise from the snooker club.
  • Cans of alcoholic drinks had been thrown over into residents’ gardens.
  • There is a log of complaints which Peterborough City Council officers were aware of.

 

Other Persons

 

Brian Gascoigne, the Millfield and New England Regeneration Partnership representative, addressed the Sub-Committee. The key points made during his address, and questions from the Sub-Committee, the License Holder and his representative were as follows:

 

  • Brian Gascoigne stated that he had nothing further to add to his written statement.

 

Summing up

 

All parties were given the opportunity to summarise their submissions.

 

License Holder / License Holder’s Representative

 

The License Holder’s Representative stated that the website from which the data had been taken for the exhibits was an officially recognised police website. There were other reasons and rationale behind the occurrence of crimes besides the establishment not being managed properly. It was disputed that the club was controlled by criminal elements. Complaints should be made by residents to the club or the environmental health officer. The club’s measures were sufficient to support the licensing objectives. There were conditions on the premises for 16 year-olds to not be allowed on the premises after 23:00.

 

The License Holder added that he was more than willing to co-operate with the council. The club was not the only thing in the area which could have people drinking large amounts of alcohol. The club did not play music, and therefore complaints about music would have to be addressed elsewhere.

 

Ward Councillor

 

Councillor Khan stated that the difficulty lied within residents not being able to distinguish where noise complaints came from. When members of the club congregated outside the club to leave or smoke, there was a significant amount of noise, which affected residents’ quality of life.

 

Responsible Authorities

 

Dorothy Poecock, the Pollution Control Officer stated that this was an opportune moment to update the licensing conditions, which is why it had been brought to the committee.

 

Sgt. Haley Richardson, representative for Cambridgeshire Constabulary stated there was a significant amount of evidence suggesting staff were not able to control customers and were in fear of their own customers, and that one in particular staff member stated she was willing to make a witness statement. One member staff had called her boyfriend rather than the police to address a customer, but this had not been recorded in the log book. It could not be risked for things to go back to how they were. Whilst small details could be disputed, there had been significant instances of violence at the establishment which could not be ignored.

 

4.11 Decision

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence put before it and also took into account the contents of the application and all representations and submissions made in relation to it.  The Sub-Committee found as follows:-

 

In their deliberations, the Sub-Committee considered the various options available, these being:

 

  • To modify the conditions of the premises licence;
  • To exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence;
  • To remove the designated premises supervisor from the licence;
  • To suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months, or; and
  • To revoke the licence.

 

They therefore agreed to reduce the opening hours of the premises, known as Mansfield Snooker Club, 119a Lincoln Road, Peterborough from 8.00am until 3.00am and to modify the conditions of the premises licence to include those conditions as requested by the police as below and as agreed by the Premises Licence Holder.

 

 

Supporting documents: