Issue - meetings

The applications were for two temporary event notices for 7th May and 28th May 2018 from 01.00 hours to 02.30 hours with the premises cleared by 03.00 hours. Both applications were subject to an objection notice from the Metropolitan Police.

PC Andrea O’Donnell on behalf of the police explained that the business had recently operated some late night TENS which in the police’s view had not been entirely successful and have had a detrimental impact on the crime and disorder licensing objective. She spoke to the  written objection from the police as to incidents arising from late night TENS on 18th March 2018 and also on 31st March 2018. Concerns from the police had been raised by letter dated 18th April 2018. The letter set out concerns that the CCTV footage was overridden (in spite of a request for the footage made in good time), as to the supervision of an outside smoking area at the front of Patrick’s, lack of management of the dispersal of Patrick’s customers and the premises incident log not being completed. The Sub-Committee was shown CCTV evidence of issues arising outside of the premises to substantiate this evidence.

Mr Dicks, a Director, spoke to the Sub-Committee in support of his application. He had some 17 years’ experience. The premises for many years had operated under TENS. In the previous year, the business used its full entitlement to TENS with no incidents. The CCTV goes on a loop to a hard drive and the CCTV was not intentionally overridden. The incidents for the first occasion occurred at a time when a TENS was not in operation. His staff did intervene but he agreed did not supervise the outside smoking area. For the second occasion, part of the problems had arisen from two professional boxers who had visited the premises but caused mayhem in the area generally – they were strangers and not typical of his clientele. If issues arise, he seeks to manage without calling the police in case this is deemed to be a black mark. With reference to the incident log, no incident had occurred within the premises.

The Sub-Committee felt that the answers given to a number of their questions were unsatisfactory. They were concerned that the CCTV record had been lost even when requested by the police, that the incident log was incomplete, the apparent reluctance to the business to call the police, that the smoking area had not been inadequately supervised and the dispersal arrangement were also unclear. They were not satisfied that all these matters would be addressed by the dates requested. Members concluded the TENS applications would result in harm to the prevention of crime and disorder objective and should therefore be refused.