Agenda item

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 the Molotov;

·         An incident referred to March had occurred after a person was refused entry to the premises and not ejected from the premises as indicated in the evidence. The matter therefore should not be considered by the Committee;

·         An incident referred to in October 2019 was subjudice and would be discussed in greater depth in Part two of the meeting;

·         Members were asked to consider why the application for review had been made. It was purported that there was a personal element to the reviews brought against the premises. The premises had enjoyed a good relationship with previous inspectors and had always tried to work with the Police;

·         Accusations of a lack of management had not been supported and there was no primary evidence to support this;

·         Members were asked where the graduated approach to enforcement had been;

·         Very few matters had arisen since the last review and the most recent review was inappropriate.

The Chairman invited members to question the respondent. The respondent was questioned about claims regarding actions arising from incidents described by the Police.