Venue: Remote Meeting via Zoom
Contact: Chris Cadman-Dando
Democratic Services Officer
01903 221364 Email: email@example.com
Declaration of Interests
Members and Officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda. Declarations should also be made at any stage such and interest becomes apparent during the meeting.
If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.
There were no declarations of interest
Confirmation of minutes
To confirm the minutes of the 25 February 2020
The minutes of the Licensing Control Committee B meeting of the 25 February 2020 be approved as the correct version.
Public Question Time
To receive any questions from Members of the Public in accordance with Standing Order 11.2
(Note: Public question time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes)
There were no questions from the public
Licensing Act 2003 Application for the Review of the Premises Licence under Section 51 - Molotov Cocktail & Vodka Bar PDF 2 MB
To consider a report by the Director for Communities, copy attached as item 4
Before the Committee was a report by the Director for Communities, a copy of which was circulated to all members, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as item 4. An application for a Review of premises licence in question had been received from Chief Inspector on behalf of the Chief Constable of Sussex. Worthing Borough Council was the Licensing Authority that granted the licence and it therefore fell to members to determine the application.
The Chairman of the Committee introduced those present and explained how the meeting would proceed.
The presenting officer outlined the application for members. The applicant confirmed that the officer had provided an accurate outline and the Committee had no questions for the officer.
The applicant’s Barrister introduced the application for Review which is summarised as follows:
· There had been previous applications in respect of the premises and the continued behaviour of the premises meant that it could not be permitted to continue;
· It was put forward that evidence submitted demonstrated that once a review on the premises was over then the operation of the premises ‘drifted’ back to what it had been;
· Themes present at previous reviews repeated themselves which included failure to comply with conditions and poor general management;
· Members were told that at the least the current DPS should be removed from the premises
· The respondent’s Barrister set out the respondent’s case which is summarised as follows:
· In 2018 there were only two issues at the premises among 42,000 people that had visited the premises in that year;
· In 2019 there was only one issue at the premises among 42,000 people that had visited the premises in that year;
· In 2020 there was only one incident;
· In the previous year there had been 3 inspections and the DPS had been told that everything was in good order and that there were no issues;
· The premises was a new corporate body from September 2019 and was not responsible for what had gone before;
· Information that had been put before the Committee included evidence in relation to a neighbouring club (a different premises) which was not associated with the Molotov. Members were told that the inclusion of this evidence by the police was misleading;
· In relation to an incident in 2018 as set out in the evidence members were told that the police did not take the matter further as it was minor in nature and not in the public interest to continue. The evidence stated that a member of the public had called in the incident, this was disputed and the premises maintained that a Member of the SIA door staff had called the Police and that the premises had indicated that it was willing to give statements if necessary.
· The premises was well established within pubwatch and was a welcome asset of the organisation;
· An incident occurring in February 2019 referred to in the evidence was in relation to the neighbouring premises and was not relevant to ... view the full minutes text for item LCCB/4/20-21
Exclusion of the Press and Public
In the opinion of the Proper Officer the press and public should be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item. Therefore the meeting is asked to consider passing the following resolution:
‘that under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting from the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A to the Act indicated against the item.’
Resolved: that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting from the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
the paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act indicated against the item'
Licensing Act 2003 - Application for the Review of the Premises Licence under Section 51
Exempt annexes to agenda item 4
The Committee took representations from both parties concerning the nature of evidence submitted as exempt and whether or not the committee should consider it. The respondent stated that as some of the evidence concerned an ongoing investigation then it was therefore sub-judice and should not be considered. This included some video evidence submitted by the Police.
The Committee agreed that it would adjourn to consider legal advice and that the meeting would reconvene the following day
The meeting was adjourned at 8.45pm and was reconvened at 6.30pm on the 8 October 2020.
On reconvening the parties were invited to submit their views on the submission and consideration of evidence
Committee informed parties of its decision concerning evidence submitted as exempt. The Committee retired to consider submissions from parties and written legal advice.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm and was reconvened at 7pm
Upon returning to the meeting the Chairman announced that the evidence submitted by the applicant, however there would be no viewing of the submitted video as the committee had a written transcript detailing what had happened.
Members asked questions in relation to the operation of body worn cameras the status of new companies and disagreements as to whether a patron had been removed from the premises or had been refused entry. Members were told that body worn cameras did not operate fully on all of the time and that they were set to standby and turned on when needed. This meant that sometimes an incident would be missed due to SIA door staff not having time to turn their cameras on if an incident was immediately pressing.
The respondent questioned the applicant on incidents detailed within the application and was questioned by the applicant of matters within the respondents submission
Summing up of the applicant
The applicant’s representative summed up which is summarised as follows:
· There had been no harassment of the licence holder;
· The Police had taken a staged approach to enforcement;
· The fact that no further action had been taken concerning the incidents was a misreading of the incidents and the incidents showed the failure of the premises;
· The premises had been involved with in incidents just four months following the previous review and the management of the premises demonstrated irresponsibility;
· Excessive levels of drunkenness were demonstrated at the premises;
· The premises had demonstrated obstructive behaviour when asked to provide CCTV footage;
· The fact that body worn cameras had not been turned on at all times was not an irrelevant issue;
· The respondent had claimed that the incident in March had involved someone being refused entry when there was evidence to show that he had been ejected from the premises;
· The most recent incident had demonstrated a number of failings with the premises;
· Recent incidents had demonstrated that the premises was being mismanaged
Summing up of the respondent
The respondent’s representative made a submission which is summarised as follows:
· Matters set out in the application by the police had led to no further ... view the full minutes text for item LCCB/6/20-21