Agenda item
LICENSING ACT 2003: REVIEW OF A PREMISES LICENCE - THE GALLEY, 118 VALE ROAD, RHYL
- Meeting of Licensing Sub Committee, Monday, 20 August 2018 10.00 am (Item 3.)
- View the background to item 3.
To consider an application from North Wales Police for the Review of a Premises Licence made in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of The Galley, 118 Vale Road, Rhyl (an outline of the submission and associated papers are attached).
10.00 a.m.
Decision:
RESOLVED that –
(a) the Designated Premises Supervisor be
removed, and
(b) the Premises Licence be suspended for a
period of three months or such lesser time as North Wales Police indicate to
the licensing authority that it is satisfied that the management of the premises
is adhering to the licensing objectives and is prepared to have some meaningful
liaison with North Wales Police.
Minutes:
A report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection
(previously circulated) was submitted upon –
(i)
an
application having been received from North Wales Police for the Review of a Premises
Licence held by Mrs. Vanessa Michelle Steele in respect of The Galley, 118 Vale
Road, Rhyl (a copy of the existing Premises Licence and current operating
schedule having been attached as Appendix A to the report);
(ii)
the
grounds for review related to the Licensing Objectives for the Prevention of
Crime and Disorder and Public Safety and were –
“as a result of the concerns that North Wales Police
has in respect of the management at the licensed premises. The Premises Licence Holder (who is also the Designated
Premises Supervisor) has failed to engage with the Force to address these
concerns, despite clear evidence of a lack of understanding of the Licensing
Objectives as defined under the Licensing Act 2003.”
full details of the Review application having been
attached as Appendix B to the report;
(iii)
North
Wales Police and the Council having embarked on a joint initiative to visit
licensed premises in the Rhyl area to highlight the requirements of licensed
premises not to serve people who were drunk as well as to generate support for
the local Pubwatch scheme (Pubwatch was a national voluntary scheme set up with
the aim of achieving a safe, secure and responsibly led social drinking
environment in licensed premises);
(iv)
a
visit to The Galley undertaken on 27 May 2018 as part of that initiative during
which officers were subjected to foul language, confrontational and aggressive
behaviour by a drunk member of the premises management and officers’ opinion
that the management team held some contempt to the Pubwatch scheme and would
serve whom they wished;
(v)
a
letter having been sent to the Premises Licence Holder inviting her to attend a
meeting to discuss Police concerns and agree a supportive way forward and her
response that should she wish to become a member of the local Pubwatch scheme
in future she would inform the Police and Local Authority;
(vi)
the
Premises Licence Holder having also failed to attend a further meeting arranged
by the Police to discuss concerns and agree a mutual understanding of the legal
requirement to further promote the licensing objectives;
(vii)
the
Premises Licence Holder in response to the Review application having suggested
she was willing to attend any local Pubwatch meetings (a copy of the response
having been attached as Appendix C to the report);
(viii)
footage
provided by the Police from a body camera during a follow up licensing visit on
1 June 2018 having been submitted in evidence and viewed by members prior to
the hearing – the footage showed an individual on the premises who had been banned
under the Pubwatch Scheme;
(ix)
the
need to consider the Review application taking due account of the Guidance
issued by the Secretary of State and the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy;
(x)
reference
to the joint enforcement protocol with North Wales Police and the Council and
three stage enforcement with an escalation mechanism – the failure of the
Premises Licence Holder to engage with Police having resulted in immediate
escalation to stage three, and
(xi)
options
available to the committee when determining the Review application.
The Enforcement Officer (HB) introduced the
report and outlined the facts of the case.
There had been some confusion on the part of the premises management
with regard to the Designated Premises Supervisor and it was clarified that
Mrs. Vanessa Steele was the Designated Premises Supervisor, not Ms. Kayleigh
Mannion. Mrs. Steele had advised of the
intention for Ms. Mannion to apply to undertake that role in future, however no
application had been received to date.
APPLICANT’S
(NORTH WALES POLICE) SUBMISSION
Chief Inspector Andrew
Williams and Police Licensing Manager Aaron Haggas were in attendance in
support of the Review Application for North Wales Police.
The Police Licensing
Manager explained his role and work with the Police in proactively engaging and
creating positive working relationships with partners and licensed premises and
highlighted the benefits of that approach for all parties. He also highlighted the importance of
actively promoting the licensing objectives and ensuring licensed premises were
aware of their responsibilities in that regard.
Whilst it was appreciated that the Designated Premises Supervisor did not
need to be present on the premises at all times, it was important for that
individual to make themselves available to discuss concerns and be actively
involved.
Chief Inspector Andrew
Williams provided some context to the Review Application in terms of the wider
community and investment in the regeneration of Rhyl together with the issue of
alcohol related crime. He reported upon
work being undertaken in the Rhyl area to make people feel safe highlighting
the important role of licensees in that regard and working with them to promote
the licensing objectives. The Chief
Inspector referred to his submissions and evidence provided within the Review
Application and drew attention to the following –
·
evidence that staff considered Mr. Steele to be the
licensee, his behaviour towards Police, and the hostility experienced by
officers
·
the complete and utter lack of knowledge of the
Licensing Act and responsibilities of licensees in that regard when questioned
·
the joint programme of routine visits to licensed
premises operated by the Council and Police to aid early intervention and
prevention of problems which was welcomed by most licensed premises, but the
view in this case that Police attention was not needed or wanted with the
inference that problems would be handled by the premises management rather than
with Police to resolve issues
·
during the visit on 27 May 2018 it transpired that
the Premises Licence Holder/Designated Premises Supervisor was seated in the
bar but she did not identify or introduce herself at any point during the
exchange
·
there was complete and utter contempt for the
Pubwatch scheme; the Police considered Pubwatch extremely beneficial in the
prevention of crime and disorder and whilst membership of the scheme was
optional, the requirement to prevent crime and disorder was not and there was a
positive obligation in that regard – it was argued that to continue to
willfully turn a blind eye to elements in society and serve them without
concern was not conducive to that requirement.
The premises management’s argument that they had no need for Pubwatch
and there was rarely trouble at the premises could not be substantiated because
they did not call the Police but dealt with issues themselves
·
detailed the numerous attempts made by the Police
to engage with the premises and reported upon the contempt and responses
received in that regard – whilst an offer had been made for Ms. Mannion to
attend a meeting it was necessary to meet directly with the Designated Premises
Supervisor to discuss concerns and expectations – in quoting directly from an
email received from Mrs. Vanessa Steele she advised that “unfortunately I do
not have time for the role” which provided no confidence in the management of
the premises. Whilst there was an
intention for Ms. Mannion to undertake the role of Designated Premises
Supervisor this was not the current position
·
reiterated concerns given the type of violent
criminals served at the premises and reported upon intelligence received with
regard to drug use and drink driving which would be subject to further
investigation.
In closing the Chief
Inspector referred to his desire to work with the premises and ensure a safe
environment for patrons. However in view
of the complete disregard of the prevention of crime and disorder objective and
contempt shown in that regard the Police felt no assurance could be taken that
a responsible person was in charge at the premises. Consequently the Chief Inspector asked that
the Premises Licence be suspended until such time that a new Designated
Premises Supervisor was appointed and assurances provided in terms of the
licensing objectives.
In response to questions
the Chief Inspector advised that –
·
there was no evidence of crime and disorder at the
premises because they did not engage with the Police at all – the prevention of
crime and disorder was a requirement under the Licensing Act 2005 and there was
evidence the management of the premises were failing to meet that licensing
objective
·
apart from intelligence received regarding drug use
and drink driving as evidenced in the written submission no other complaints
had been received but people were generally reluctant to talk officially to the
Police in that regard.
PREMISES
LICENCE HOLDER’S REPRESENTATION
Mrs. Vanessa Steele,
Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor was not in
attendance and had appointed Ms. Kayleigh Mannion to represent her at the
hearing. Ms. Mannion was a member of the
bar staff and was accompanied by Ms. Patricia Wilson who worked at the premises
in an administrative capacity and Ms. Carys Rainford who was the licensed
landlord and owner of the premises.
In response to the Police
submissions –
·
Ms. Mannion indicated that she had not been present
during the Police visit on 27 May 2018 but when Mr. Steele advised that he was
not working that night the Police should have refrained from further discussion
and instead spoken to bar staff which could have prevented his reaction. She explained that Mr. Steele was a customer
at the time of the visit, he was not management, and he had become ‘wound
up’. Ms. Carys Rainford indicated that
she was present during the visit and did not experience any hostility and was
not negative towards the Police. The
Chief Inspector reiterated that the Police had asked to speak to bar staff and
it was Mr. Steele who had approached the Police to speak with them in the bar
area. Ms. Mannion clarified that as Mr.
Steele was owner of the business he had been incorrectly identified as the
licensee by a member of the bar staff when questioned by Police. She added that Mr. Steele had not ventured
behind the bar as such during that visit because drinks were not served from
that area which had been designated a clearing/sink area
·
it was accepted that individuals banned under the
Pubwatch scheme were served at the premises but there had been no trouble at
the premises over the last ten years – if there was any trouble the Police
would be informed but staff could control the customers. As the premises was not a member of Pubwatch
those banned were aware they would be served and, after drinking, taxis would
be arranged via Ms. Rainford’s taxi company to take customers home so they were
not on the streets causing trouble
·
confirmed that Mrs. Steele worked during the day
and was only available at the premises during the evenings or weekends
·
to their knowledge the Police had not been into the
premises to check for drug use or investigate any allegations of drink driving
·
Ms. Rainford provided details of the comprehensive
use of CCTV in the vicinity of the premises to protect her property advising
that she fully co-operated with Police in the event that footage was requested
and prevention of crime and disorder was taken seriously – she met with Mrs.
Steele on a regular basis and was unaware of any issues of crime and disorder,
especially in terms of security – in her view the premises was operated
professionally and properly
·
Ms. Wilson advised that, in terms of crime and
disorder, the area used to be busy but at present The Galley was the only pub
open – they had long standing patrons who had been drinking at the premises for
generations, including the elderly, which demonstrated there was no fear of
crime; at weekends families frequented the premises and she classed the
premises as family friendly. There was
no evidence of crime and whilst there was the odd disagreement there were never
any serious disturbance or issues of concern at the premises.
In response to questions
members were advised that –
·
customers banned on the Pubwatch scheme had been
patrons for generations – it was not just a business decision to serve them
·
it had been difficult for Mrs. Steele to meet with
the Police due to work commitments but it was accepted that she should have
made arrangements to meet with the Police when she was available outside of
work hours
·
their view that because there was no crime and
disorder at the premises there was no need to engage with the Police
·
there had been no input from the Police since 2010
and the premises was managed and operated effectively.
APPLICANT’S
(NORTH WALES POLICE) FINAL STATEMENT
In his final
statement Chief Inspector Andrew Williams reiterated that he would welcome a
conversation with Mrs. Steele – he had offered to meet on numerous occasions
whilst also indicating his willingness to meet at a time most convenient to
her. Mrs. Steele had advised that she
had no time to run the premises and there was currently no one of
responsibility in charge. The management
controlled the premises themselves without involving the Police, serving those
banned under the Pubwatch scheme resulting in a concentration of violent
individuals. The Chief Inspector further
responded to previous comments made that he should not have continued his
conversation with Mr. Steele on 27 May 2018 by advising that he had indicated
to Mr. Steele that he was in no fit state to speak with him but he persisted to
continue the conversation. He also
responded that, if serving customers banned under the Pubwatch Scheme was not a
business decision – there would be no other reason to continue to do so – driving
out the bad elements would increase bar sales and enhance the reputation of the
premises.
ADJOURNMENT
TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION
At this juncture (11.40 a.m.) the Licensing
Sub Committee adjourned to consider the application.
DECISION
RESOLVED that –
(a) the Designated Premises Supervisor be
removed, and
(b) the Premises Licence be suspended for a
period of three months or such lesser time as North Wales Police indicate to
the licensing authority that it is satisfied that the management of the
premises is adhering to the licensing objectives and is prepared to have some
meaningful liaison with North Wales Police.
The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to the
parties present and the Solicitor reported upon the reasons for the decision as
follows –
The Licensing Sub Committee heard all of the
submissions in respect of the application for a Review of the Premises Licence
for The Galley brought by North Wales Police.
The Chief Inspector had given a long and detailed
account of attempts made to engage with the premises and his failure to meet
Mrs. Vanessa Steele (Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises
Supervisor) at all, despite those attempts.
By her own admission Mrs. Steele stated that she had no time to be
involved in the running of the business.
Mrs. Steele had failed to attend the Review hearing
and instead appointed Ms. Kayleigh Mannion to represent her. There was a belief that Ms. Mannion was
Designated Premises Supervisor at the premises.
This was a wrongly held belief and had been for some time. There was no application on behalf of the
business to change the Designated Premises Supervisor at this time and it was
not known whether Ms. Kayleigh Mannion would be a suitable Designated Premises
Supervisor. There was no correspondence
between Mrs. Steele and anyone else at the premises with regard to her stepping
down as Designated Premises Supervisor and appointing someone else in her
stead.
The submissions of North Wales Police demonstrated a
complete lack of willingness on behalf of the management team at the premises
to engage with the Police. Whilst it was
accepted that the premises had no detailed record of crime and disorder at the
premises, it appeared to be the case, on the submissions put forward by Ms.
Kayleigh Mannion and Ms. Carys Rainford that the ethos of the business was very
much that they would continue to handle issues themselves as opposed to
discussing how they might prevent crime and disorder at their premises. It would also appear that the unwillingness
to engage with the Police, even in a preventative situation, goes further than
Mrs. Steele but to other people who were involved to one extent or another with
the running of the premises. There was a
certain hostility towards that engagement for reasons which were unclear from
the hearing itself.
The Licensing Sub Committee had little confidence in
the present management of the premises.
As such, it could not be confident that whoever was in reality running
the premises was supporting the licensing objectives. Consequently the Licensing Sub Committee
resolved to remove Mrs. Vanessa Steele as Designated Premises Supervisor. Furthermore the Licensing Sub Committee
determined to suspend the Premises Licence for a period of three months, or
such lesser time as North Wales Police indicated to the licensing authority
that it was satisfied that the management of the premises was adhering to the
licensing objectives and that the management of the premises was prepared to
have some meaningful liaison with North Wales Police.
All parties were advised of the right of appeal
against the Licensing Sub Committee’s decision to the Magistrates Court within
twenty one days.
Supporting documents: