Agenda item
LICENSING ACT 2003: REVIEW OF A PREMISES LICENCE - THE BARRELL, 37 - 39 WATER STREET, RHYL
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 Barrell, 37 – 39 Water Street, Rhyl (an outline of the submission and associated papers are attached).
10.00 a.m.
Decision:
RESOLVED that the
Premises Licence be revoked.
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 Mr. Ian Mcallister
in respect of The Barrell, 37 - 39 Water Street, 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 as follows –
·
“North Wales Police have a lack of
confidence in the management of the Premises to responsibly manage the premises
·
Failure to challenge drunk customers and
allowing customers to get drunk on premises and serving drunken customers
·
Failure to manage the behaviour
of customers at the premises
·
Failure of the premises to adequately
manage and control incidents of crime and disorder
·
Evidence of an environment within the
premises whereby drug taking is openly tolerated
·
Failure to report all incidents of crime
and disorder to North Wales Police
·
North Wales Police is of the opinion that
the hours for licensable activities are not suitable for the premises and that
the majority of incidents occur after 00:00
·
Failure to promote the Licensing
Objectives, particularly the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety
and Public Nuisance”
full details of the Review Application having
been attached as Appendix B to the report;
(iii)
there
having been no further representations received from Responsible Authorities or
members of the public in response to the requisite public notice of the Review
Application;
(iv)
reference
to the joint enforcement protocol with North Wales Police and the Council and
the three stage enforcement system culminating in an application for Review of
the Premises Licence;
(v)
Mr.
Sean Mountford having been proposed to be the
Designated Premises Supervisor at the premises following submission of the
Review Application however no official application had been received in that
regard and therefore Mr. David Jai Jones remained the Designated Premises
Supervisor;
(vi)
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, and
(vii)
options available to the committee when determining the
Review application.
The Licensing Officer (NJ) introduced the
report and outlined the facts of the case.
APPLICANT’S
(NORTH WALES POLICE) SUBMISSION
Chief Inspector Andrew
Williams and Police Licensing Manager Aaron Haggas were in attendance in
support of the Review on behalf of North Wales Police.
The Police Licensing
Manager highlighted the duties placed on licensed premises to promote the
licensing objectives and take a proactive approach in that regard. He submitted that the incidents highlighted
within the Review Application should not be classed as a normal consequence of
the licensed trade or profile of the town and the action taken by the premises
provided guidance on what standard of behaviour would
be tolerated. North Wales Police
considered the lack of consequences to desist anti-social and criminal behaviour at the premises had resulted in such behaviour spilling outside onto Water Street with the lack
of control and direction from the premises generating a culture of chaos with
many incidents requiring Police presence.
It was also submitted that the premises had made no attempt to alleviate
concerns and the Police had put forward a number of strategies, including
reducing permitted hours, with the only change implemented being a handover of
the premises management to another family member. The premises had been insistent on remaining
open after 12 midnight because it was their busiest time and were putting trade
before promotion of the licensing objectives.
Finally it was submitted that the lack of proactive action by the
premises promoted the unacceptable behaviour by
customers and put both the public and staff at risk.
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 Police’s
responsibility to ensure a safe environment for residents and visitors. With regard to the nighttime economy the
focus was on prevention and early intervention which included challenging
drunken behaviour and its consequences. The Chief Inspector referred to his
submissions and evidence provided within the Review Application and drew
attention to the following –
·
he considered The Barrell to be the worst managed licensed premises he had
encountered during his police service and drew attention to twenty-four
incidents documented in the Review Application covering the period 3 January
2018 to 30 September 2018. The vast
majority of those incidents had occurred in the early hours of the morning and
involved drunken behaviour by patrons. At a meeting with Police on 24 September 2018
Ian Mcallister, who had taken over management of the
premises from his son Mark Mcallister, had provided
assurances as to future management.
Despite those assurances there was no evidence to support any measures
being taken to address issues at the premises and issues had continued to
arise. The most significant incident and
cause for concern documented within the Review Application occurred in the
premises on 29 September 2018 and referred to the violent ‘glassing’ of a young
female who had been left disfigured for life.
The Police had not been called until almost an hour after the incident
which demonstrated that despite Ian Mcallister being
an experienced long standing licensee there had been no improvement in the
management of the premises
·
further incidents had
occurred since submission of the Review Application (details of which had been
circulated prior to the meeting) and he elaborated upon those for the benefit
of the Licensing Sub Committee. In
summary four incidents had occurred over the period 26 October 2018, 20
November 2018, 24 November 2018 and 27 November 2018 relating to threatening behaviour and assault.
The latest incident had occurred in the early hours of the previous day
when an assault had been reported in the premises. Those involved had been identified as drunk
by Police and the suspect was removed from the area. The remaining individuals had been
re-admitted to the premises after the Police had left, despite the Police
advising that they be refused further service, and those individuals were later
involved in another incident in the area.
Whilst the Police accepted that Ian Mcallister
had not been responsible for the premises until September 2018 there had been
no improvement under his management
·
it was reiterated
that the vast majority of anti-social behaviour
occurred in the early hours of the morning and in most cases the Police were
not routinely called to incidents of disorder as evidenced in the Review
Application. It was evidently clear that
problem individuals within the premises were not asked to leave; drunken
individuals were allowed to carry on drinking in the premises; a customer had
openly taken drugs at the premises and when told to stop was allowed to
continue drinking and the Police had not been called. Despite previous assurances to the contrary,
there was evidence that Mark Mcallister was still
involved with the premises – he had been seen frequenting the premises and had
asked to meet with the Council with regard to the premises.
In closing his submission
the Chief Inspector felt that revocation would be the most appropriate course
of action in this case given the public safety concerns and crime and disorder
issues associated with the premises in its current form.
In response to questions
the Chief Inspector confirmed that ample opportunity had been provided to the
premises management to engage with the Police and address the concerns
raised. It was confirmed that the joint
enforcement protocol with the Police and the Council had been followed with
stage 1 and stage 2 meetings of that protocol having taken place. The Police had also met with Ian Mcallister when he took over management of the premises and
a further meeting had been held with his legal representative the previous week
when he had put forward a terminal hour of 1.30 a.m. However the Police did not consider the
terminal hour appropriate given that the majority of incidents occurred after
12 midnight and considered the submission of a terminal hour of 1.30 a.m. to be
based on financial considerations rather than addressing the issue of public
safety.
PREMISES
LICENCE HOLDER’S REPRESENTATION
Ian Mcallister
(Premises Licence Holder) was in attendance at the
meeting with his daughter and legal representative Mr. Ryan Rothwell, Linenhall Chambers.
In making his client’s case
Mr. Rothwell –
·
submitted that it would
be unjust and disproportionate to revoke the licence
at this stage indicating that his client had not been given sufficient
opportunity to curtail the problems evidenced at the premises. The premises had not previously been before
the Licensing Sub Committee and neither had there been any previous application
for review of the licence which should be a last
resort, particularly given that the issues could be properly addressed by
curtailing the terminal hour – in this regard he suggested 1.00 a.m. would be
an appropriate time. In addition there
had been no support for revocation in terms of representations received from
Responsible Authorities or members of
the public following public notice of the Review Application
·
advised that Ian Mcallister
had over thirty years of experience as a licensee and had taken control of the
premises on 24 September 2018 – he had no involvement with the premises before
that time when the majority of incidents had occurred and therefore it was
unfair to suggest Ian Mcallister had been given ample
opportunity to address the issues when he had only taken over responsibility of
the premises for approximately two months, particularly considering that his
son Mark Mcallister had been given a period of ten
months prior to Ian Mcallister taking over management
·
agreed with the
Police, to an extent, that the social
profile of the town and the fact that such incidents were part and parcel of
that did not mean they should be tolerated and the premises should act to sort
out the problems in the premises.
However Rhyl as a town did have problems with late night drinking and
incidents naturally occurred in that environment and although there was a
campaign to address that there was much work to do and in reality closing the
premises completely would not assist that aim
·
disputed the claims that
the management had not co-operated with the Police and it was Ian McAllister’s
view that the Police had stopped co-operating with him. Ian Mcallister had
instigated a number of measures as follows –
°
CCTV – a number of cameras had not been working and
there were now 16 fully operational cameras at the premises with footage
retained for an appropriate period and in some cases CCTV footage had been
provided and assistance given to the Police in that regard by the premises
management
°
various staff had been
dismissed and replaced, confirming that the employee who had witnessed drug use
on the premises and had failed to act had been fired, and employees had
received training. To help deal with the
specific issues raised by the Police, Ian Mcallister
had undertaken a number of training courses and submitted training certificates
in evidence (at the meeting) in relation to Age Verification; Underage Sales
Prevention; Drugs Awareness together with an e-learning course covering alcohol
and its effects, the law surrounding the retail of alcohol, protection of
children, social responsibility and dealing with alcohol related crime
°
Door Staff – with regard to the incident in August
2018 involving a door staff member not assisting in breaking up a fight, it was
submitted that a temporary door supervisor was on duty at that time provided by
an agency and that the permanent door supervisor did deal with matters
appropriately.
·
it was submitted that numerous changes had occurred
in recent times since the change of management and he suggested that the
premises operate with curtailed hours for a three month trial period as opposed
to revocation
·
there had been a clear appreciation by Ian Mcallister that changes needed to be made however at a
meeting with the Police the previous week the instructing solicitor advised
that the Chief Inspector had not been open to negotiation in terms of
curtailing the terminal hour and considered the licence
should be revoked given that the premises had been afforded ample opportunity
to address areas of concern – Ian Mcallister had only
been given two months
·
referred to the circumstances of the incident
(glassing) which had taken place after Ian Mcallister
had taken over management of the premises on 29 September 2018 as referenced in
the Police evidence advising that there had been an acting DPS employed for a
trial period during that incident and the premises management did not condone
his actions in responding to that incident
·
in response to the additional incidents at the
premises since submission of the Review Application (circulated prior to the
meeting) he advised –
°
26 October 2018 – it was unfortunate that Mark Mcallister had been at the premises. Assurances were provided that Mark Mcallister no longer had any involvement and had been
barred from the premises; staff had been instructed to robustly enforce that
ban. The incident had occurred at 11.05
a.m. and there had been no door staff present to eject him from the premises
°
20 November 2018 – the initial attempted assault
was immediately dealt with by door staff and the individual concerned was
ejected from the premises; the further assault outside the premises had been
reported to the Police and the premises had co-operated with Police and
provided CCTV footage to assist. The
incident occurred after 1.00 a.m. at 1.48 a.m.
°
24 November 2018 – incident occurred at 1.27 a.m.
and it was difficult to appreciate anything the premises could have done given
that it involved someone not connected to the premises who had been passing
outside. The incident had been reported
to Police and the premises had co-operated with the Police
°
27 November 2018 – the incident had been dealt with
immediately and involved an individual entering the premises and assaulting a
family who had been in the premises for a couple of hours. The assailant was ejected from the premises
and the family permitted to stay because they were not at fault.
In closing his submission
Mr. Rothwell highlighted the timings of the incidents referred to by the Police
which generally occurred later than 1.00 a.m. and therefore it was submitted
that a temporary 1.00 a.m. terminal hour on a three month trial basis was proportionate,
particularly given the later opening times of other licensed premises in the
area, and would provide an opportunity for Ian Mcallister
to demonstrate that he could address the issues of concern. The suggestion of a 1.00 a.m. terminal hour
was pragmatic as it was considered that it would give the same result as a 12
midnight closure given the timings of the previous incidents but an earlier
terminal hour would result in the premises not being viable and would
effectively result in closure of the premises.
Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Mcallister clarified issues and responded to members’
questions as follows –
·
there was one full
time door supervisor employed at the premises and cover was provided. Previously a door supervisor was on duty from
11.00 p.m. but since Ian Mcallister had taken over a
door supervisor was on duty from 9.00 p.m. with two door supervisors on duty
from approximately 10.30 – 11.30 p.m. at peak times – it was noted that the
ratio for door staff was 1:100 patrons and the premises was only licensed for
100 persons
·
clarified the permitted
hours of operation of the premises which had been detailed within the Premises Licence (Appendix A to the report) from 7.00 a.m. to 3.00
a.m. to cater for special sporting occasions.
The premises previously opened at 8.00 a.m. but following Police advice
it now opened at 11.00 a.m. in line with the normal opening hours as specified
within the Premises Licence
·
a number of
members of staff had been replaced with a more mature and experienced workforce
and the position of DPS was clarified – the current DPS David Jai Jones had
undertaken that role near the end of Mark Mcallister’s
involvement in managing the premises. At
the time of the glassing incident on 29 September 2018 David Jai Jones had been
registered DPS but an acting DPS had effectively been on duty fulfilling that
role on a trial basis – no application had been received to change the DPS
because the acting DPS had not been considered suitable
·
assurances were provided
that when he had taken over as management Ian Mcallister
had instigated all actions immediately as requested by the Council, including
with regard to CCTV, door supervisors and training. Ian Mcallister had
been appalled that the Police had not been called immediately with regard to
the serious incident on 29 September 2019 and had since instructed staff to
report all incidents to Police immediately which was actively being undertaken
·
elaborated upon Ian Mcallister’s extensive experience with thirty years in the
trade confirming his qualifications as a landlord. He had undertaken further training in areas
identified by Police to provide further assurance in that regard.
APPLICANT’S
(NORTH WALES POLICE) FINAL STATEMENT
Chief Inspector
Andrew Williams responded to comments made as follows –
·
regarding the
meeting with Ian Mcallister’s legal representative
the previous week he advised that his position had been inaccurately
portrayed. The legal representative had
been invited to put forward proposals and he had confirmed that he had not been
prepared to accept the proposed terminal hour of 1.30 a.m. and would prefer to
put the matter before the Licensing Sub Committee
·
the
reference that Mark Mcallister had been barred from
the premises was questionable given that he was the son of the licensee and had
been captured on CCTV in recent times and identified as going in and out of the
premises; it was also understood that Mark Mcallister
had contacted the Council with regard to a meeting about the premises
·
the Police had
spoken with the acting DPS after the glassing incident on 29 September 2019 and
it was confirmed that David Jai Jones remained DPS. The acting DPS had requested Police be called
and advised that he wanted nothing further to do with the premises
·
regarding the
notion that all incidents occurred after 1.00 a.m. an incident had just
occurred at 12.31 a.m. midweek on 27 November 2019. After 12 midnight a significant amount of
alcohol would have been consumed. There
had been drunken people fighting in the premises and having remained there with
appropriate steps not being taken to tackle the issue.
In his final
statement the Chief Inspector reiterated that the premises should do everything
it could to address violent behaviour which had not happened in this case. As recently as 27 November 2018 there had
been an issue with a group of drunken youths who had been re-admitted to the
premises to continue drinking despite the Police requesting that those
individuals be refused service – recent evidence that the premises was not
effectively dealing with problems. [Mr.
Rothwell pointed out that the incident log stated “intoxication – not known
fully as persons are not known” and therefore it was not known whether the
individuals were intoxicated. The Chief
Inspector advised that the Police Officer who had attended the incident had
confirmed that the individuals were drunk.]
ADJOURNMENT
TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION
At this juncture (11.00 a.m.) the Licensing
Sub Committee adjourned to consider the application.
DECISION
RESOLVED that the Premises
Licence be revoked.
The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to the
parties present and the Solicitor reported upon the reasons for the decision as
follows –
Having carefully
considered all of the submissions in respect of the application for a Review of
the Premises Licence for The Barrell brought by North
Wales Police the Licensing Sub Committee found the following –
1.
There
had been a fundamental breakdown in the way the premises had been run over a
number of recent months.
2.
The
Police had demonstrated a pattern of incidents at the premises which were
worrying to say the least, and which flew in the face of three of the licensing
objectives.
·
There
was crime and disorder within the premises and in the immediate vicinity on a
number of occasions (cctv footage)
·
There
was public nuisance in the premises and in the immediate vicinity at all hours
of the early morning
·
Public
safety was seriously affected by the incidents of violence in and around the
premises
3.
None of
the incidents had been denied or mitigated in any way by the management of the
premises.
4.
Notwithstanding
the fact that Ian Mcallister had recently taken over the
running of the premises, there had still been violent incidents as recently as
Monday/Tuesday of this week.
5.
Drunken
people had still been allowed to re-enter the premises after an altercation,
notwithstanding the fact that the police had advised the premises that those
patrons ought to be going home. That
demonstrated that the premises had little regard to the advice from the Police
and failed to recognise the impact of continuing to serve persons who were
already heavily intoxicated.
6.
The
Licensing Sub Committee felt that the public were in immediate danger to their
own safety if the premises continued to operate.
7.
Whilst
it was accepted that Rhyl had a myriad of social problems that was in no way
mitigation for the behaviours which were allowed to perpetuate in and around
these premises.
8.
The
premises had failed to demonstrate sufficient actions which would give
confidence to the Licensing Sub Committee
a. They were not amenable to a curtailment of
the hours of operation to 12 midnight (even when it was demonstrated that most
of the incidents occurred past 12am).
b. They had failed to provide sufficient,
adequate and effective door staff
c. They had failed to cooperate with the Police
in relation to the reporting of incidents
Whilst it was recognised
that the new management had taken some steps since taking over the premises,
these had not had the desired impact and serious incidents had continued to
take place. Of particular note was the
serious glassing incident of a female in the premises. In essence it had been too little too late.
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: