Agenda item - Application for Review of Premises Licences -Under the Gambling Act 2005, Units 1 -4 Regency Arcade, 63-64 West Street, Brighton

Report of  the Head of Regulatory Services (Copy attached)

12.1    The Panel considered a report of the Director of Public Health in relation to a review of a premises licence under the Gambling Act 2005 for Units 1-4 Regency Arcade, 63-64 West Street, Brighton. In attendance were Mark Savage-Brooke on behalf of the Licensing Authority; Mr Andy Isaacs from the Gambling Commission; Charles Heal on behalf of the premises; Phil Silver from BACTA and Brian Donnan as the legal representative for the applicant.

 

            Introduction from the Licensing Officer

 

12.2    The Senior Officer, Sarah Cornell, introduced the report and stated that the hearing was for a review of the of the four adult gaming centres at Regency Arcade, West Street, Brighton brought under the Gambling Act 2005. The Licensing Authority had called for the review under the Protecting Children gambling objective due to two failed test purchases at the premises. One representation had been received from the Gambling Commission supporting the review application which sought to add additional conditions to the licence or other actions that the Panel felt to be appropriate. Supplementary information had also been provided by the premises prior to the hearing.

 

12.3    There were four separate licences within one premises as there were limits set by legislation on the amount of machines that each type of premises licence could have – these were categorised by limit of monetary stakes and prizes. It was confirmed this type of arrangement and multiplicity of licence was normal procedure and referred to in Gambling Commission Guidance.

 

12.4      During this review hearing the licensing authority must: consider the application made in accordance with Section 200 and consider any relevant representations. Reference was made to guidance that the purpose of the review would be to determine whether the licensing authority should take any action in relation to the licence.  If action were justified, the options were to:

 

(a)        Add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by the licensing authority

(b)       Exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State (relating to, for example,             opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion

(c)        Suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months

            (d)       Revoke the premises licence.

 

12.5    In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review the Licensing Authority must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the Act:

 

                   (a)       In accordance with any relevant Code of Practice issued by the                   Gambling Commission,

(b)       In accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission,

                   (c)        Reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and

                   (d)       In accordance with the Authority’s Licensing Policy.

 

12.6      If the Panel were minded to add additional conditions to the licence Gambling Commission Guidance stated that any conditions imposed by the Licensing Authority must be proportionate to the circumstances which they are seeking to address.

 

Representation from the applicant

 

12.7      The Licensing Officer, Mark Savage-Brookes, gave a submission of behalf of the Licensing Authority as the applicant calling for the review. The premises had failed two test purchases; the first on 20 April 2014 – following this Officers had met with Mr Heal; offered advice and stated that a further test purchase would take place. The second test purchase was failed on 9 October 2014, and following this the review was called for. It was noted that there were different licences and the test purchases had only taken place at two of the premises, but as all of the premises were together the review had been called for all of them. Following the request for the review Officers had again held discussions with Mr Heal and these positive discussions had continued following the appointment of Mr Donnan. It was noted that the premises had a challenging layout as there was a family gaming area at the front of the premises and this had been discussed. The Licensing Officer noted he was satisfied the operators had taken the matter very seriously.

 

12.8      In response to Councillor Marsh it was noted that the additional conditions had been agreed to in principle.

 

12.9      In response to Councillor Simson it was noted that the premises needed to achieve a balance between visibility and non-visibility, and the ‘cash-box’ in the adult gaming centre was highlighted and well as photos showing the changes to layout and signage that had already been made. Both the Licensing Officer and Mr Isaacs noted there were still problems the layout that caused issues for access and supervision.

 

12.10   The Licensing Officer noted the authority was requesting regular recorded staff sweeps of the premises to help address some of the issues in relation to layout. Mr Donnan added that there was already a member of staff undertaking checks, and the proposed response was proportionate. The Licensing Officer then went over the proposed conditions for the Panel.

 

Representation from Responsible Authorities

 

12.11   Andy Isaacs addressed the Panel on behalf of the Gambling Commission and stated that operators were subject to duel regulation, and highlighted the three objectives set out in the Gambling Act 2005. The third objective related to the protected of young, vulnerable people, and the licence should impose conditions to manage this. The Gambling Commission had become involved when it was clear that the procedures had not sufficiently upheld that objective, and there was no evidence that the premises were actively testing their own procedures. The Gambling Commission encouraged and supported regular action by the Licensing Authority and, as such, had put in a representation in support of the application.

 

12.12   Mr Isaacs stated that he was of the view the breaches of the licence were a combination of the problems with the layout the lack of proper training.

 

Representation from the Licence Holder

 

12.13   Mr Donnan gave a representation on behalf of the operators. He stated that there was only one entrance to the adult gaming area, and there was clear line of sight to this area from the cash-box. There had also been changes to the signage. Form his own experience of visiting the premises Mr Donnan had the impression that those using the adult gaming area were in the knowledge that they needed to show ID, and were clear they could be turned away. In terms of the proposed infrared beam this was industry standard and tested and would have a supply from the mains power – a log of testing would also be kept. The system was very simple and would make a noise when the beam was broken as someone passed through the two sensors. The premises were currently proposing that it be used when either of the two members of staff (one on the cash-box and one on patrol) were not at their stations – for example during their breaks.

 

12.14   The premises would hold a log book of incidents, and this had been seen by Officers at the Licensing Authority. There was also a condition requesting membership of the BACTA (or other appropriate body), and they would undertake quarterly test purchases. It was felt that these proposals demonstrated how seriously the premises had taken the matter. The premises would also retain CCTV footage for 3 months. It was felt that the comprehensive package of measures would address the problems.

 

12.15   In response to Councillor Cobb the following matters were clarified. There were additional conditions in relation to staff training, and there would be quarterly training from BACTA and in-house training every month to 6 weeks.

 

12.16   In response to the Licensing Officer it was explained that it was not the intention to have the infrared beam on at all times; only when one of the two staff in the area were not at their stations. 

 

12.17   In was clarified for Councillor Simson that the operators did not intend to have the infrared beam on at all times as the noise could cause a nuisance for customers and potentially put people off using the area. The operators agreed that the beam could be permanently only until midday when staff were doing other duties during quieter period such as cleaning.

 

Summaries

 

12.18   The Senior Licensing Officer stated that the Panel had heard from all the parties present regarding the Review brought by the Licensing Authority on the bases that the objective of protecting children had been undermined. The Panel must have regard to: the application made in accordance with Section 20 and any relevant representations including those from the premises. In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review the Licensing Authority must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the Act:

 

(a)       In accordance with any relevant Code of Practice issued by the       Gambling Commission,

(b)       In accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission,

            (c)        Reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and

(d)       In accordance with the Authority’s Licensing Policy.

 

12.19   The purpose of the review would be to determine if any action should be taken in relation to the licence. If action was justified the options were to:

 

(a)        Add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by the licensing authority

(b)       Exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State (relating to, for example,             opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion

(c)        Suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months

            (d)       Revoke the premises licence.

 

12.20   Once the review had been completed the Licensing Authority must as soon as possible:

·                notify its decision to:

·                the licence holder

·                the applicant for review (if any)

·                the Commission

·                any person who made representations

·                the chief officer of police

·                HM Revenue and Customs.

 

Parties could appeal the decision of the Licensing Authority.

 

12.21   The Licensing Officer reiterated that the operators had been responsive, and he recommended the proposed conditions before the Panel.

 

12.22   Mr Donnan stated that this was the first occasion of a review for the operators that had run the premises for over 30 years; they were a part of the local community and had taken action as soon as they had received the notice for the review.

 

12.23   At 1306 hours the Panel retired to make their decision, and they reconvened at 1346 hours to deliver this.

 

12.24   RESOLVED: The decision of the Panel was as follows:

 

“The licensing authority has decided to take the following action as a result of the review:

Add the following conditions to the premises licence under Section 169: 

 

(1)       Proposed Re-altered Layout

The licence holder to submit a new floor plan layout to the licensing authority indicating better lines of sight for staff and restricting further the ability to access the Adult Gaming Areas. Such plan to be to the satisfaction of the licensing authority.

 

(2)       Infra Red Beam

To be positioned across the entrance to the Adult Gaming Areas.   To be utilised whenever:

 

(a)       The first member of staff is not positioned within the Cash Box or,

(b)       The second member of staff is not on patrol.

The infra red beam is mains supplied but can be battery operated as back up.

The system will be tested daily and a record kept.

The sound produced to alert staff is distinct and required to be of a volume that it can be heard over other gaming machines in operation.

It is equipment that is compliant with British Standards and used in other commercial premises.

 

(3)       Maintaining of a Refusal Register. This will be maintained in addition to the current Log Book.

 

(4)       In-house Age Verification Testing

To be undertaken on a regular basis at least every 6 weeks and a record of those tests will be kept.

 

(5)       The licence holder will be a member of BACTA or similar organisation who will undertake compulsory age verification testing every 3 months for the first 12 months and thereafter at least on an annual basis. Records will be maintained and available to licensing officers upon request.

 

(6)       The operation of a CCTV system (already in place) and the footage currently being kept for 28 days will be upgraded to 3 months.   Such footage will also be available for inspection and production to disc on request from Brighton & Hove City Council’s Licensing Team.

 

(7)       All staff to be trained in age restriction and challenge on a regular basis. This training to be refreshed on a regular basis and records made available to licensing officers upon request.

 

(8)       The premises will operate a ‘challenge 25’ policy and prominent signage and notices will be displayed showing the operation of such policy. 

 

The reasons for the licensing authority’s decision are as follows:

 

The Panel considered the application for review of the premises licence and had regard to the relevant licensing codes, objectives and guidance and considered all the submissions made at the hearing.

The Panel took into consideration the level of co-operation between the licensee, the licensing authority and the gambling commission, and the changes already made to the layout of the premises.

The Panel is satisfied that the above conditions which were mostly proposed by the licensee and discussed with the licensing authority will promote the licensing objective of protecting children from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

The Panel considers that the action taken is a proportionate response to the serious failure of practice which prompted the review.”

 

12.25  The Chair formally thanked all the work that Officers had put into bring this work forward.