Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The premises user addressed the sub-committee.  The premises user also called upon Councillor David Noakes, a ward councillor as a witness.  Members had questions for the premises user.

The environmental protection officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the environmental protection officer.

Both parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 10.48am.

The meeting resumed at 11.09am and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That a counter notice not be issued under Section 105 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the temporary event notice (859102) served by Hannah Metcalfe in relation to an event to be held at Mint Street Park, London SE1, between 11:00 and 19:30 on Saturday 15 July 2017.

Reasons

This was a temporary event notice (TEN 859099) given by, Hannah Metcalfe, the premises user, in respect of an event to be held at Mint Street Park, London SE1, between 11:00 and 19:30 on Saturday 15 July 2017.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from the premises user who advised that the event consisted of different areas with two different stages. Namely the area from the path across the park from the Quilip Street entrance to the Mint Street entrance, including the Muga area. The other is for the area from the path between Quilip Street and Mint Street to the Marshalsea Road entrance, including the wooden stage area.

The premises user also advised the sub-committee that the event was a non-profit community music festival operating from 11.00 to 19.30 which had operated similar events by way of TENS applications in 2015 and 2016. The sub committee were also informed that both previous events had been a success without any complaints or issues.

The premises user advised that a meeting would be held with the police in order to ensure that the security for the event was adequate and that any recommendations such as the proposition to increase the SIA security from two guards to four guards would be acted upon.

The premises user also assured the sub committee that the wardens and security would be briefed prior to the event and would monitor the capacity of each area to ensure that the capacity of 499 people in each area was managed in accordance with the TENs licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from the licensing officer who advised that the premises user had previously been granted a TENS licence in respect of a similar event and that no complaints were received.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from the environmental protection officer who advised that the application for two TENS seem to licence one larger event. The officer expressed concern that exceeding the 499 capacity limit creates a risk that licensing objectives would not be upheld. Specifically prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of nuisance.

The licensing sub-committee accepted that the provision of TENS within the Licensing Act 2003 were vague as was the Section 182 guidance. The sub committee were sympathetic to the concerns raised in relation to the potential of premises users circumventing the 499 capacity limit by applying for multiple TENS.

The sub committee noted the recommendation made by the House of Lords Select Committee and concur with their views:

‘Where it appears that notices are being given for TENS simultaneously on adjacent plots of land, resulting in effect in the maximum number exceeding the 499 person limit, we would expect the police or environmental protection officers to object and the licensing authority to issue a counter notice. We recommend that the section 182 guidance be amended to make this clear.’

Although the sub committee noted that any future TENs applications utilised in a similar manner (by either the applicant or others) should be decided by a licensing sub-committee. At this stage it was noted that the details of the report of the House of Lords Select Committee were only recommendations.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and noted that the event had operated successfully in both 2015 and 2016. In view of the substantial risk assessment and event plan provided by the premises user the sub committee were reassured and satisfied that there were suitable measures in place to ensure that the event would be operated responsibly and uphold the licensing objectives.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

Where the relevant counter notice under Section 105(3) is given the premises user may appeal against the decision. Where counter notice is not given, the chief officer of the environmental protection team may appeal against that decision.  The appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ Court within a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the applicant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision to be appealed against.  No appeal may be brought later than five working days before the day on which the event begins.