Agenda item

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 (an outline of the submission and associated papers are attached).

11.00 a.m.

 

Please note the procedure to be taken by the Sub Committee (which is attached to this agenda).

RESOLVED that the Premises Licence be revoked.

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. James Benbow in respect of Bar Bow, 27 Water Street, Rhyl pursuant to Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003;

 

(ii)      the grounds for review related to all four licensing objectives (Prevention of Crime and Disorder; Public Safety; Prevention of Public Nuisance and the Protection of Children from Harm) as follows –

 

“as a result of incidents and crime and disorder, and concerns raised by North Wales Police of the management at the licensed premises, particularly failure to comply with the conditions of the premises licence.

 

Despite attempts by North Wales Police and Denbighshire County Council to address the concerns raised, using the licensed premises review procedure, serious incidents have continued.

 

The premises has failed to promote the four licensing objectives.

 

North Wales Police have a lack of confidence in the Designated Premises Supervisor, the Premises Licence Holder and management of the premises to responsibly manage the premises”

 

full details of the review application and the incidents and interventions undertaken by the North Wales Police and Denbighshire County Council having been attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

 

(iii)     a meeting having been held with the Licence Holder and the Designated Premises Supervisor to discuss continuing concerns and a detailed Stage 1 action plan was agreed by all parties which was not complied with;

 

(iv)     a subsequent meeting having been held on 6 July 2016 at the request of the Premises Licence Holder’s Legal Representative to allow an opportunity to present what actions had been taken to improve the management of the premsies (outline proposals having been tabled at the meeting);

 

(v)      a fully copy of the existing Premises Licence including the current operating schedule having been included in the Review Application (Appendix 2 to the report);

 

(vi)     the need to consider the Review application taking due account of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State; the Council’s Statement of Licensng Policy; other relevant legislation, and relevant representations received, and

 

(vii)    options available to the committee when determining the Review application.

 

The Public Protection Business Manager introduced the report outlining the facts of the case and options available to the Sub Committee when making their decision.

 

APPLICANT’S (NORTH WALES POLICE) SUBMISSION

 

Assistant Force Solicitor Gill Jones; Chief Inspector Paul Joyce; Sergeant Steve Prince, and Police Licensing Manager Aaron Haggas were in attendance in support of the Review Application on behalf of the North Wales Police.

 

The Assistant Force Solicitor explained that the review application had been submitted as a last resort advising that officers had worked hard with the management to try and support them but all those attempts had failed.  The review had been called based on all four of the licensing objectives and it was the prime responsibility of management to address those issues and ensure the premises was operated efficiently.  She referred to a long list of incidents associated with the premises since it was opened in 2014 covering serious assaults, drugs, theft and underage drinking.  The latest incident as reported in the press referred to a serious assault which had occurred outside the premises resulting in the victim sustaining a broken nose and whose attacker had been sentenced to two years imprisonment.  The Premises Licence Holder, Mr. James Benbow was not in attendance and whilst the proposal to transfer the Premises Licence was noted, no formal application had been submitted.  Given the catalogue of incidents and lack of engagement on the part of the premises the Police had no confidence in the management’s ability to responsibly operate the premises.

 

The Police Licensing Manager provided some background to the premises which was a popular Sports Bar/Night Venue attracting a wide age range clientele.  The open layout of the premises was conducive to identifying and dealing with concerns.  Reference was made to repeated attempts to engage with the Premises Licence Holder and management of the premises since October 2014, initially offering advice and support in managing an effective licensed premises and subsequently in addressing specific areas of concern identified and in response to particular incidents.  Members were advised of a distinct lack of engagement by the management of the premises and specific concerns over Mr. Benbow’s attitude and his refusal to join Rhyl Rules and Pub Watch and his reluctance to apply policies and implement changes in order to address specific problems areas and promote the licensing objectives.  Mr. Benbow considered it acceptable to allow individuals in the premises who had been banned under Rhyl Rules and management were dismissive of the Police’s concerns and failed to accept there were control issues at the premises and their responsibilities in that regard.

 

The Sub Committee was shown CCTV footage of several incidents on the premises during April and May 2016 including serious assaults/fighting inside the premises and lack of management control; a male repeatedly exposing himself to customers unchallenged; children entering and leaving the premises unattended; men using the ladies toilets, and suspected drug dealing and drug taking.  The Sub Committee’s attention was also drawn to particular incidents detailed in the Police’s written submission (Appendix 1 to the report) with regard to underage drinking; sexual conduct and other serious assaults together with a number of serious incidents which the management had failed to report to the Police.  The Police Licensing Manager elaborated upon the actions as listed in the action plan issued on 20 May 2016 in order to promote responsible licensable activity and address the problems identified, the majority of which had not been complied with, and violent disorder and drug use/supply had continued at the premises.  The evidence presented demonstrated the lack of robust management of the premises which undermined the four licensing objectives.

 

The Assistant Force Solicitor concluded by referring to the meeting with the Premises Licence Holder and Legal Representative (Mr. Winston Brown) on 6 July 2016 at which they presented a small number of actions taken to improve management of the premises.  Since then there had been no firm proposals as to how the problems would be addressed.  Finally reference was made to an email dated 21 July 2016 from Mr. Brown detailing proposals to transfer the Premises Licence to Mr. Luke Irving with Mr. Benbow withdrawing from any future involvement in the business, and closing the premises for up to 28 days to allow for a refurbishment and rebranding exercise.  Given that Mr. Irving was already part of the same management and given the lack of measures to address the problems and promote the licensing objectives, the Police could gain no assurance from those proposals and were not confident that any major changes would be implemented.  Chief Inspector Paul Joyce added that a constant police presence was required in the area and Sergeant Steve Prince advised that in his twenty five years as a Police Officer he had never known any premises to cause such concern.

 

PREMISES LICENCE HOLDER’S REPRESENTATION

 

Solicitor Mr. Winston Brown, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) Miss. Jessica Lane and Bar Manager Mr. Luke Irving were in attendance in support of the licence review.  Mr. Brown had submitted some documentation (circulated at the meeting) in support of the licence review including an outline of the proposals to address issues of concern as discussed with Police during their meeting on 6 July together with comments from a security consultant.  An email dated 21 July 2016 detailing a number of additional proposals was also provided, summarised below –

 

·         that the Premises Licence be transferred to Luke Irving with James Benbow having no involvement in the business going forward

·         Bar Bow to close from 7 August 2016 for up to 28 days to allow a refurbishment and rebranding of the business

·         Bar Bow to be reopened under a new name to signal a different type of business and help ensure the wrong crowd was not attracted

·         the existing SIA security firm be retained but monthly meetings to be held with a representative of the security firm, DPS and licensing police officer to review performance of security arrangements

·         argued that the proposals along with liaising with the relevant authorities would result in a well-established and safe environment for public and staff.

 

Mr. Brown thanked the Police for their detailed presentation.  He advised that problems were being acknowledged and that proportionate measures were being put in place to address them, highlighting the main issues as follows –

 

·         not being a member of Rhyl Rules had resulted in people banned from other premises being allowed into Bar Bow which became a magnet for trouble – this had now been acknowledged and the premises had joined Rhyl Rules and Pub Watch to provide assurances that identified trouble makers would be kept out

·         with regard to children and drugs on the premises, it had been alleged that door staff had been complicit with some drug dealing in the past which had been resolved by the new DPS working constructively with new door staff

·         the proposed transfer of the Premises Licence to Luke Irving had arisen due to the lack of confidence expressed by the Police in the current Premises Licence Holder and was considered a sensible measure in order to move forward constructively with Mr. Benbow focusing on other business interests – it was argued that Mr. Irving was very experienced in the licensed trade.  Whilst the current DPS had been criticised she was very committed and involved in turning things around at the premises

·         indicated that many of the issues were historical and associated with the previous DPS and that the proposed change in management together with additional measures would help the premises move forward

·         elaborated upon the measures put forward during the meeting with the Police on 6 July 2016, particularly training which had been undertaken to address areas of concern including drunkenness and drugs to enable staff to deal with those issues promptly and efficiently.

 

Mr. Brown argued that, given the significant measures being taken to address the issues identified by the Police, revocation would not be proportionate in this case.  In light of the Police’s criticism of the current DPS, Miss. Lane, a change to the DPS would also be considered and he suggested that this action may be a more proportionate response to consider in response to the Police’s concerns.

 

The DPS, Miss. Lane reported upon the staff training undertaken covering alcohol/drug awareness, conflict management and CCTV.  Regular staff meetings had been introduced to cover issues such as Challenge 25, toilet checks, etc. and she had already noticed a massive change in the bar, with fewer, less serious incidents, suggesting that bad things needed to happen for things to change.  Miss. Lane provided assurances that the aim was to achieve a trouble free bar and measures were being taken which were already having an effect, such as practicing Rhyl Rules and being proactive in that regard. She wanted to work closely with the Police and develop good relations, advising that incident reports were emailed on a weekly basis to the Police and Licensing Department and the Police contacted in response to incidents as appropriate.  Miss. Lane felt that closing the bar and re-opening with a different name and upmarket establishment would result in a fresh start, both in terms of management and clientele.  Given her previous involvement in managing the premises Miss. Lane accepted there may be concerns regarding her continuation as DPS and she was would be open to the suggestion for a new DPS to give greater confidence in that regard.  Finally she accepted that the changes were crucial in changing the culture of the premises and was confident that the new robust management style would prove effective.

 

Representatives from Bar Bow responded to members’ questions as follows –

 

·         with regard to proposals to transfer the Premises Licence it was clarified that Mr. Benbow owned the premises but the licence would be transferred to Mr. Irving and Mr. Benbow would not be involved in the day to day operation of the premises – there was the possibility of the bar being leased to Mr. Irving and operated as a separate premises

·         Miss. Lane had been DPS at the premises since January 2016 and the previous DPS had brought much of the trouble at the premises

·         it was accepted that the change could not be made overnight but measures had been introduced and matters were improving

·         Miss. Lane had been unclear about what aspect of the pricing strategy was of concern to the Police given that pricing was competitive and in line with other licensed premises – however the Police advice had been taken in that regard

·         confirmed that an incident book was kept detailing any occurrences and the Police were called when appropriate

·         Miss. Lane advised that she had no previous experience of working in the licensing trade prior to her employment at Bar Bow where she had initially worked as bar staff before taking over as manager in January 2016; she had undertaken a BIIAB Course and wished to progress further in the trade.  Mr. Irving referred to his previous employment history and experience in the licensed trade spanning the last 6/7 years and had also undertaken the BIIAB Course.

 

Members also put questions to the Police Representatives who advised that –

 

·         with regard to Miss. Lane’s claims that the premises had improved over the last couple of months, the Police advised that they would expect to see changes in a premises on notice of review and it was too early to judge whether there would be any significant impact as a result of the proposed changes.  The evidence presented covered the period from 2014 and included some recent events

·         if the Premises Licence was transferred, Mr. Benbow would still retain a business interest and element of control which was a cause for concern.  Both the DPS and Luke Irving had been involved in the current management structure and had no significant impact on the management of the premises

·         the serious issues identified at the premises should not be allowed to continue whilst the management of the premises reviewed its processes.

 

APPLICANT’S (NORTH WALES POLICE) FINAL STATEMENT

 

In his final statement the Police Licensing Manager responded to previous comments made by Miss. Lane that she did not agree with Rhyl Rules but would comply for the sake of the premises and she had only made contact about the Pub Watch scheme on 4 July 2016.  Mr. Benbow was still associated with the premises and blamed the Police for the serious incident on 30 May 2016 as evidenced by comments on facebook.  It was submitted that shifting management around was a poor strategy to address concerns and there was nothing to support what the re-branding would achieve and the Police were not satisfied that measures were being put in place to resolve issues.  The drop in recent incidents referred to by Miss. Lane was questionable with serious matters such as the hammer attack not being reported to Police.  Finally the Police had been disappointed to note Miss. Lane’s comments that things had to get so bad before they got better – the Police sought to support licensed premises but wanted well run, responsibly managed premises and to get so bad before getting better was not a common practice.

 

ADJOURNMENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION

 

At this juncture (2.00 p.m.) the committee adjourned to consider the application.

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 

RESOLVED that the Premises Licence in respect of Bar Bow, 27 Water Street, Rhyl be revoked.

 

The Chair conveyed the Sub Committee’s decision to all parties at the meeting and the Solicitor verbally reported upon the reasons for the decision as follows –

 

The Licensing Sub Committee expressed serious concerns regarding the catalogue of incidents and issues relating to the premises as presented by North Wales Police which demonstrated abject and sustained failures in the management of the premises and covered a failure to meet all four of the licensing objectives detailed, in particular, below –

 

Prevention of Crime and Disorder

 

There was clear evidence of crime and disorder at the premises over the last two years and over recent months.  This crime and disorder led to serious injuries being sustained by customers and staff in the premises.  There was evidence of weapons being used and likely evidence of drug taking and drug dealing at the premises.  There was also evidence that males used the female toilets putting females at risk of harm.  There was clear evidence that toilet checks were insufficient at the premises.  There had been frequent fights and disturbances resulting in criminal prosecutions.  The Sub Committee considered staff and customers to be at risk if they attended the premises notwithstanding the time of day the premises were open.  Crime and Disorder was a feature throughout all opening times.

 

Protection of Children from Harm

 

There was clear evidence that underage children were simply entering the premises unaccompanied and unchallenged by staff and management.  Underage children had access to alcohol and were not challenged.  This was unacceptable and children were put at risk.  Children were also at risk of assault, particularly when there was evidence that males entering the premises had exposed themselves on a number of occasions and had gone unchallenged by staff and management.  The CCTV footage showed a male (known for being banned from other premises in Rhyl) exposing himself on a number of occasions, and directly in front of an elderly customer on one occasion.   The lack of management intervention and the risk this kind of behaviour presented to children cannot be underestimated. Safeguards at the premises were simply not in place to protect children from harm.  Children (young females) were seen in the toilets unchallenged by staff and management, and it was seen on the CCTV that males entered the female toilets unhindered when females were present, placing women and children at risk.   

 

Prevention of Public Nuisance

 

There was evidence that the premises was a source of public nuisance.  The failure to comply with Rhyl Rules and to engage with Pub Watch and embrace the ethos of a safer drinking culture was endemic throughout the staff and management and showed a considerable lack of awareness.  There was disregard of the licensing laws and advice which had been given from professionals in the area of expertise, designed to assist and encourage the management of the premises.  This failure continued despite numerous attempts made by professionals to aid and promote responsible management practices at the premises.  Consequently no assurance could be taken from recent attempts and undertakings to engage which were considered too little, too late by the Sub Committee. 

 

Public Safety

 

The premises was considered unsafe for members of the general public.  The lack of management control in the premises to deal effectively with crime and disorder had put staff and customers at risk.  There was evidence that management and supervision in the premises were inexperienced in the management of a premises of this size and nature.  There was also concern that the Premises Licence Holder, Mr. Benbow, was still a controlling influence in respect of the premises which was a serious cause for concern.  There was no complete assurances given that he would be removed from any management control over the premises whatsoever. 

 

The current management accepted that there had been problems at the premises.

 

Overall the Sub Committee had no trust and confidence in the current ownership and management of the premises sufficient to satisfy itself that it could operate a credible and safe premises under the Licensing Act 2003.  The proposals to change the Premises Licence Holder and potential to change the Designated Premises Supervisor were insufficient to instill any confidence that there was now a sea change into how the premises would be run in future, particularly if the current Premises Licence Holder, Mr. Benbow remained the owner or controlling mind of the company.  The small advances which had been made at the hearing, whilst they went some way towards addressing the problems, should have been implemented much sooner and were, of themselves insufficient to satisfy the Sub Committee that the licence should be allowed to continue.

 

The attitude towards the Police and Licensing Officers who had tried to assist them over the previous few months was of particular concern, as it was the attitude of the current Designated Premises Supervisor who said she thought that things had to get that bad so that things could be improved.  That view was simply not accepted by the Sub Committee.  People had been injured and distressed as a result of incidents of crime and disorder at the premises.  The view taken by the Designated Premises Supervisor was not at all encouraging and showed a lack of experience and naivety about the requirements of running a licensed premises in accordance with the law. 

 

There had, in the opinion of the Licensing Sub Committee, been a total breakdown in the management of the premises to run an establishment in accordance with the requirements of the law.  As such, the Sub Committee considered that revoking the licence was necessary in the circumstances. 

 

The meeting concluded at 2.45 p.m.