Agenda item
LICENSING ACT 2003: REVIEW OF A PREMISES LICENCE - Y BODUNIG, HIGH STREET, DYSERTH
To consider an application from North Wales Police for the review of a Premises Licence submitted in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 (an outline of the submission and associated papers are attached).
Please note the procedure to be taken by the Sub Committee (which is attached to this agenda).
Decision:
Vote taken: 3 in favour, 0 against
RESOLVED that the
Premises Licence be revoked.
Minutes:
A report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection
and Countryside Services (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. Abdulhamit Salih Colakoglu in respect of Y Bodunig, High
Street, Dyserth (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 as stated on the application being as follows –
“Failure
to promote the Licensing Objectives, particularly Public Safety and the
Prevention of Crime and Disorder.”
full details of the Review Application having been
attached as Appendix B to the report but in summary related to various reports
that the premises had been open on a number of separate occasions in breach of
the regulations imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic which required
the closure of all public houses, clubs and restaurants; the Police having also
cited issues with regard to the provision of CCTV evidence and their lack of
confidence in the collective ability of the premises management to operate
responsibly; consequently the Police sought permanent closure of the premises;
(iii)
reference
having also been made to a previous Review brought by the Police resulting in
the removal of the then Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), Mr. Derek
Coulton, who was replaced with the current DPS Mr. Nihat Colakoglu; however Mr.
Derek Coulton remained as Manager responsible for the day to day running of the
premises;
(iv)
there
having been four representations received in response to the requisite public
notice of the Review Application (attached at Appendix C to the report) – Mr.
Derek Coulton acting as an Interested Party together with three further letters
from other Interested Parties which, whilst acknowledging the issues raised by
the Police, were supportive of the premises remaining open;
(v)
no
response to the Review Application having been received from the Premises
Licence Holder (PLH) Mr. Abdulhamit Salih Colakoglu;
(vi)
the
need to consider the Review Application taking due account of the Council’s
Statement of Licensing Policy; Guidance issued by the Secretary of State; other
relevant legislation and representations received, and
(vii)
the
options available to the committee when determining the application.
The Licensing Officer introduced the report
and detailed the facts of the case. She
also drew attention to additional information which had been circulated to all
parties since publication of the report which included (1) the chronology of
CCTV footage on 30 March which had been omitted from Appendix 14 of the papers,
and (2) two reports of further information and recent developments at the
premises submitted by the North Wales Police.
It was also noted that the DPS – Mr. Nihat Colakoglu would be
representing the PLH – Mr. Abdulhamit Salih Colakoglu in his absence.
APPLICANT’S
(NORTH WALES POLICE) SUBMISSION
The Assistant Force
Solicitor Mr. Gareth Preston and the Police Licensing Officer PC Manus Sheridan
were in attendance on behalf of the North Wales Police.
In making the case for the
Police, Mr. Preston submitted that the management of the premises had
comprehensively failed to abide by the licensing objectives, particularly
public safety, which given the global pandemic was inexcusable. The Manager at the time, Derek Coulton, had been
removed as DPS in 2014 following a previous Review by the Police but had
remained as Manager with day to day responsibility of the premises. There had been no evidence of active
management by the DPS or PLH. The ground
for Review was the failure to promote the licensing objectives, particularly
the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder.
The Police Solicitor
elaborated upon the comprehensive evidence provided in the Review Application
and drew attention to the numerous incidents during March and April 2020 which
clearly demonstrated the premises had been actively trading in breach of the
coronavirus regulations and putting public safety at risk. The evidence included intelligence and
reports to the police regarding active trading together with subsequent investigations
and police visits to the premises, some of which had since been corroborated by
CCTV footage obtained from the premises.
It was submitted that Derek Coulton had been actively working to deceive
the police and licensing authority during this period, creating the illusion
that repair/refurbishment works were being carried out as a cover for people
drinking in the premises, and with regard to his CCTV drive had been
deliberately obstructive. CCTV footage
collected from the premises appeared to capture interference of the system and
following forensic examination wiped footage had been recovered and matched to
the times of specific incidents and corroborating those reports.
The Police Solicitor also
drew attention to additional information provided by the Police (previously
circulated to all parties) relating to recent developments and further
pertinent information. Particular
reference was made to the following –
·
the premises having hosted a club meeting on 6
August with images on social media showing a complete absence of any social
distancing or virus countermeasures. A
report by the Environmental Health Officer who attended the premises (with two
police officers) on 7 August was read out which highlighted the lack of safety
measures to protect patrons and those who may be exposed to virus
transmission. Other comments made via
social media arising from reporting of the Review in the local press were also
highlighted
·
a new Manager had been installed at the premises as
of 18 August and it was submitted that the management of the premises warranted
careful scrutiny with all the parties involved being close business associates,
and details of links to other licensed premises were also provided to
demonstrate that any change of management between those individuals would be a
cause for concern. Due to the nature of
the relationship between the parties the Police submitted it was highly likely
that the unacceptable management style would endure without a clear change in
direction and personalities. Given that
and the nature of the risk to the public in this case mediation had not seemed
proportionate. Clearly, the management
of the premises undermined the licensing objectives and had put people at risk
of virus transmission when advice could not have been clearer.
The Police Solicitor also
responded to the representations submitted by Derek Coulton (Appendix C to the
report) as follows –
·
he claimed there were intermittent faults to the
CCTV system but no faults were reported to the licensing authority as required
by licensing conditions
·
he confirmed the PLH was not involved in the
business or aware of work carried out at the premises demonstrating that the
PLH had no oversight or interest
·
claims that there were workers at the premises had been
disproved by CCTV footage and clearly showed an illusion being created of work
being carried out
·
there was no mention of the allegation of people
hiding in the premises during the police visit on 29 March or explanation for
people drinking in the premises or cash at the bar which was clearly the sale
of alcohol by retail
·
with regard to the letter from the individual
claiming to have undertaken work at the premises it did not provide any detail
of dates of work undertaken and did not read as an impartial tradesperson or
regular contract
·
photographs had been provided to illustrate work
carried out but CCTV showed that the work had already been done and people were
drinking in the bar.
With regard to the other
letters of representation from Interested Parties it was noted that the main
emphasis was on the loss of the public house and community impact but the
current management had been proven to be unacceptable and unsafe. The final letter of representation from a nearby
neighbour had also highlighted concerns in relation to the management of the
premises.
In closing the Police
submission PC Sheridan drew attention to the following –
·
on 29 March Derek Coulton advised Police that only
himself and his wife were in the premises but the recovered CCTV footage showed
people hiding in the flat during the police visit which was a deliberate
attempt to deceive
·
referenced comments in the additional information
circulated by Police which he believed demonstrated that what went on at the
premises was an open secret
·
reiterated Police concerns regarding the new
Manager given the incidents referred to at other licensed premises they
operated
·
highlighted the deliberate attempts by Derek
Coulton to deceive the Police with regard to the CCTV footage and advised that
colleagues who recovered the footage had indicated it had been deliberately
deleted
·
having personally viewed all the CCTV footage
available it was clear that no work had been carried out at the premises during
the times claimed.
In response to questions PC
Sheridan confirmed that prior to the evidence presented in the current Review
Application there had been no recorded crime in the premises since the removal
of Derek Coulton as DPS in 2014.
INTERESTED
PARTIES REPRESENTATION
Representations had been submitted from four
Interested Parties – Mr. Derek Coulton, Councillor David Williams (Dyserth
Ward), Dyserth Community Council and Ms. B. Glover (Appendix C to the
report). It was noted that Dyserth
Community Council and Ms. B. Glover were not in attendance to speak to their
representations which would be taken as read.
Mr. Derek Coulton responded to particular issues
raised by the Police as follows –
·
apologised for what had happened advising that
he had resigned as Manager and no longer had anything to do with the premises
·
pointed out that his removal as DPS in 2014 had
nothing to do with drugs
·
refuted allegations made that the premises had
been open during lockdown
·
insisted people in the premises were there to carry
out various works, including workmen and their wives, with no more than five
people at any time
·
admitted providing drinks to workers in the
premises as a way of thanking them with any money taken for drinks due to be
given to charity
·
explained he had phoned the Licensing Department
to enquire as to whether a plumber would be allowed in the premises because he
was unsure
·
referred to the CCTV equipment advising there
was a fault on the system which had been subject to repair several times; there
was an iCloud back up; he had nothing to hide in that regard and had freely
given the CCTV to police
·
he had been offended by the inspection report on
safety measures carried out on 7 August advising of the safety measures that
were in place
·
he was anti-drugs and with regard to the
incident on 21 March the offender had been outside but had been brought into
the premises by the police.
Councillor David Williams referred to his
written representations and advised that the pub had historically been a
vibrant part of the community and a focal point and asset to the
community. Whilst not passing judgment
or condoning what had happened at the premises he spoke for himself, the
Community Council and many of the people of Dyserth when he said that it would
be considered a backward step if the premises ceased to be a public house and
would be detrimental to the community.
Consequently he hoped there would be a way of keeping the pub open,
perhaps with different management, and secure its future as a public house.
PREMISES
LICENCE HOLDER’S REPRESENTATION
In the absence of the PLH
Mr. Abdulhamit Salih Colakoglu, the DPS Mr. Nihat Colakoglu attended as his
representative.
In presenting his
representations Mr. Colakoglu submitted that –
·
he had no knowledge of what had been going on at
the premises because he had been self-isolating at that time; he had not
approved it nor did he condone it
·
the PLH could not be held responsible because he
had been out of the country since February and was working in a Turkish
hospital
·
the new Manager had been brought in based on his
success at another pub/restaurant and it was hoped to replicate that success at
the Bodunig
·
responded to issues raised by the Police with
regard to other premises operated by the management providing an explanation to
allay the concerns raised
·
he believed the police had a personal problem with
the management team because they would not engage with the mediation process.
Members sought further
clarification regarding the management arrangements and Mr. Colakoglu confirmed
the ownership/lease arrangements relating to the Bodunig and links with other
licensed premises and business associates.
APPLICANT’S
(NORTH WALES POLICE) FINAL STATEMENT
In making a final
statement the Police Solicitor submitted that there was still no definitive
action or clear plan in place as to how the premises would be properly
managed. It was noted that Derek Coulton
would have no active involvement running the premises but his replacement was a
cause of concern to the Police with questions raised as to his
suitability. The DPS chose to take no
management action during lockdown when he could have used the technology
available to him. Similarly because the
PLH was abroad did not absolve him from any responsibility and he could
designate others to take tasks but there was no evidence of him doing so. The evidence provided by the Police was
incontrovertible in terms of activities in the premises and they remained
extremely concerned regarding the management of the premises with public safety
put at risk.
PC Sheridan
responded to comments made during submissions advising that –
·
the DPS
had not checked on the premises despite living very close by
·
the
inspection of safety measures undertaken on 7 August had been carried out by
the Council’s Environmental Health Officer
·
the
statements of the two police officers attending the drug incident on 29 March
confirmed that the incident took place inside the premises
·
there
was no personal issue with the management of the premises which had only been
investigated following reports made by the public.
ADJOURNMENT
TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION
At this juncture (11.40 a.m.) the Chair
closed the meeting to all other parties and the Licensing Sub Committee retired
to consider the application in private session.
DECISION
RESOLVED that the Premises
Licence be revoked.
The reasons for the decision being as follows –
The Licensing Sub Committee had carefully considered the
report together with the written representations made by the various parties
and oral submissions during the hearing and response to questions. The Sub Committee had also taken into account
the relevant law and guidance as part of their deliberations.
On the basis of the evidence provided, and in light of the
catalogue of incidents at the premises during March and April 2020 set out in
that evidence, the Sub Committee was satisfied that the premises had been run
in such a way that was contrary to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and
promotion of Public Safety licensing objectives. The additional evidence presented in respect
of the hosting of a club meeting at the premises on 6 August and the lack of
social distancing or virus countermeasures during that meeting, which was
further corroborated following an inspection of safety measures by the
Environmental Health Officer on 7 August, demonstrated the continued management
failings to date.
The Sub Committee were of the clear view that the
premises needed to be properly managed in accordance with the relevant law and
guidance and were particularly aware of the need to protect public safety at
this difficult time in light of the current public health crisis arising from
COVID 19. The failure to properly manage
the premises to date had therefore led to the decision to revoke the licence.
Whilst it was recognised that some steps had recently been
taken to change the management of the premises, given the nature of the
relationship between the parties involved as set out by the Police and their
concerns in that regard, the Sub Committee had no confidence that the current
management failings would improve as a result of these proposals and resolved
on a unanimous basis that in order to promote the prevention of crime and
disorder and the promotion of public safety licensing objectives, it was
appropriate to revoke the Premises Licence.
The parties were provided with a summary of the decision
later that day and a full reasoned decision was subsequently issued.
The meeting concluded at 12.15 p.m.
Supporting documents: