Decision - Review of a Premises Licence Under the Licensing Act 2003, Golden Grill, 9 Western Road, Hove

80.1    The Panel considered a report of the Director of Public Health seeking review of the Premises Licence of the Golden Grill, 9 Western Road, Hove.

80.2    Mr Savill Barrister at Law and Sergeant Morgan were in attendance on behalf of the Police. Councillor Mac Cafferty was in attendance in his capacity as a Ward Councillor in support of his own submission and those made by local residents’ associations. The Licence Holder, Ms Hadavi was in attendance accompanied by her adviser Mr Simmonds who spoke on her behalf.

            Introduction by the Licensing Officer

80.3    The Licensing Officer, Mr Savage-Brookes confirmed that the Panel were being requested to consider an application for review which had been made by Sussex Police. The Police were seeking a review on the grounds of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. Further evidence to support the application had been submitted to the Licensing Authority office and was attached within the revised Appendix E which had also been circulated.

80.4    Sussex Police had initially recommended revocation of the licence. However, a Memorandum of Agreement, signed by both the premises licence holder and Sussex Police, had been submitted subsequently setting out conditions which had it been agreed by both parties could be applied to the licence, including a period of suspension.

80.5    Representations had been received in support of the original submission from two Local Resident Associations and from Cllr Mac Cafferty one of the Local Ward Councillors who had raised concerns regarding crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

80.6    The Licensing Officer confirmed that the available to the licensing authority when deciding on any action for this application which will conclude this hearing were:

80.6    The Licensing Officer confirmed that the options available to the licensing authority when deciding on any action for this application which will conclude this hearing were:

·                     the modification of the conditions of the premises licence (including the times that licensable activities can take place)

·                     the suspension of the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months;

·                     revocation of the licence;

·                     or they could decide to do nothing.

Submission by the Police

80.7    Mr Savill, Barrister at Law representing the Police explained that he had little to add to the information contained in the submitted paperwork which he considered was self explanatory, indicating however that he was happy to answer any questions that the Panel or the other interested parties might have. He confirmed that the Police had been minded to recommend that the licence be revoked in view of the fact that the premises had been trading outside its permitted hours, this constituted a criminal offence, fundamentally flouting conditions of the licence. Conditions were added to a licence in the expectation that they would be observed. Notwithstanding this, as soon as the licence holder (who had been absent from the premises due to ill health) had become aware of the situation, they had contacted the Police in order to seek to address the situation, discussions had taken place and they had agreed to enter into the Memorandum of Agreement set out in the circulated agenda papers.

80.8    On the basis the Memorandum of Agreement the Police were recommending that the Licence not be revoked as they had no wish to de licence any premises in instances where agreement had been reached to ensure that a premises operated in accordance with its conditions in future. It should be noted however that they would not hesitate to take further action if there were any lapses in relation to the manner in which the premises were run.

80.9    Councillor Simson enquired whether revocation had been sought in response to the fact that the premises had been trading beyond its permitted hours or in response to specific incidence of crime and disorder. Mr Savill responded that the two things were linked in that where premises traded beyond their agreed hours that could increase the likelihood of crime and disorder. Thought was given to the hours during which a premises were permitted to operate, if those hours were not respected it could give rise a catalogue of problems.

80.10  Councillor Deane, the Chair enquired regarding the proposed period of suspension from Thursday 22 May to 28 May during which time no licensable activities would take place after 23:00 hours and it was explained that this equated to expiry of the period during which an appeal could be lodged.

Submission by the Ward Councillor

80.11  Councillor Mac Cafferty the Chair referred to the impact on residents caused by licensed premises, particularly those located in Western Road, all of the side streets radiating from it were essentially residential in character. If premises did not comply with their licence conditions this had a very negative impact. The Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) had been extended in response to the difficulties experienced by residents in his ward and a gate had recently been added to the top end of Farman Street near to the premises in response to  the  detrimental impact on residents of antisocial behaviour emanating from Western Road.

            Submission on Behalf of the Applicant

80.12  Mr Simmonds spoke on behalf of the applicant stating that Ms Hadavi greatly regretted the situation that had arisen in respect of her premises. As soon as she had become aware of the situation (initial correspondence had been posted to the premises rather than her home address), she had immediately sought to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the Police. The situation had arisen in consequence of Ms Hadavi suffering ill health which had resulted in her having less day to day involvement at the premises than had previously been the case.

80.13  Mr Simmonds assured the Panel that Ms Hadavi was fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and would be taking all necessary steps to seek to ensure that there would be no recurrence of the breeches which had taken place and that[i] she would have a direct “hands on approach” in future. Ms Hadavi lived in the locality herself and appreciated the importance of running her business in a neighbourly way. Mr Simmonds explained that the cost of erecting the gate to Farman Street referred to by Councillor Mac Cafferty had been financed locally and that Ms Hadavi had contributed to its cost. None of the parties wished to add anything to their earlier submissions and as there were no further questions each party then gave their closing statements.

            Closing Submissions

80.14  In closing the Licensing Officer, Mr Savage–Brookes confirmed that where the licensing authority considered that action was necessary under its statutory powers it could take the following steps:

·      modify the conditions of the premises licence (including the times that licensable activities could take place);

·       suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months;

·       revoke the licence

·       decide to do nothing.

80.15  If the panel decided to add additional conditions they should be clear, precise and enforceable as penalties for breaching the conditions of a licence were severe. The panel’s decision should be appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

80.16  Mr Savill spoke on behalf of the Police and stated that he had nothing to add to his earlier submission other than to re-iterate his earlier comments.

80.17  Councillor Mac Cafferty also confirmed that he did not wish to add anything further to his earlier comments. Councillor Deane, the Chair sought confirmation that the arrangements made between the applicant and the Police would be acceptable to him and to local residents. Councillor Mac Cafferty responded that they would be provided they were fully met and complied with.

80.18  Mr Simmonds gave his closing submission on behalf of Ms Hadavi stating that she was willing to meet all of the stipulations set out in the Memorandum of Agreement including a period during which the licence would be suspended.

80.19  The Panel retired to consider the application, on re-covening the Chair stated that the Panel had carefully considered all the arguments put forward and read all the supporting documents. They had heard evidence from the Police of several breaches of the licence, which had continued despite repeated warnings. These breaches had seriously undermined the licensing objectives relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder. The Panel had also heard evidence from a local ward councillor of the negative impact that this had had on residents over a long period of time. However, the Panel had also heard that the licence holder had worked with the police to rectify the situation, resulting in a Memorandum of Agreement signed by both parties, which also had the stated support of the ward councillor.

80.20  The Panel had therefore decided to agree and endorse the Memorandum of Agreement, so that the conditions detailed within it would be added to the licence. Furthermore, there would be a suspension of the licence from 22-28 May 2014, during which time, no licensable activities will be permitted beyond 23.00hrs. The Panel would like to make it known to the premises licence holder that this was a serious case and that their decision had given the opportunity for  the  licence holder to continue trading within the terms of her licence and the Licensing Act 2003. Should any further breaches take place, she ran the risk of full revocation.

80.21  RESOLVED – That the Panel endorse the Memorandum of Agreement which had been entered into by the applicant with Sussex Police and that these conditions be added to the Licence following a period of suspension of the licence to run between 22-28 May, during which time no licensable activities will be permitted beyond 23.00 hrs.