Agenda item

The licensing officer presented his report.  It was noted that warning letters had not been circulated with the agenda and would be circulated at the meeting with the agreement of all parties.

There were some anomalies in the version of the licence included in the agenda which was highlighted by the licensee’s legal representative. It was agreed by all parties, that they were in agreement to go ahead with the review hearing and would not appeal based on this administrative error.

The licensee submitted a bundle of documents and witness statements which had been received in time and were accepted by the sub-committee. At 10.20am it was agreed to have a 15 minute adjournment for the members and all relevant parties to read the papers.

The chair had agreed to give all relevant parties 20 minutes to speak, this time was to include time for any witnesses to speak.

The sub-committee resumed at 10.35am after the 15 minute break and the police began the presentation of their review application.  Members had questions for the police officers and their legal representative.  The legal representative of the licensee also had questions for the police. 

The local residents and ward councillor were then given 20 minutes each to address the sub-committee. Members had questions for the local residents and ward councillor. The legal representative of the licensee had questions for the local resident, the ward councillor and the local resident acting as a witness for the ward councillor.

The licensee and the local resident were then given 20 minutes to present their case against the review.  The members had questions for the licensee and his representative.  Local residents had questions for the licensee.  The police representative had questions for the licensee.

All parties were given 5 minutes to sum up.

The meeting went into closed at 2.40pm. All parties were invited back into the meeting at 3.30pm. The sub-committee made the following decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application by Metropolitan Police Licensing Service for the review of the premises license in respect of the premises known as Hypnotik 75-79 Norwood Road SE24 9AA is granted as follows:

The premises licence is suspended for 21 days.

Reasons for the Decision.

Having considered the evidence submitted by the Police, the Licensee and the interested parties, the sub-committee is satisfied that there have been repeated breaches of a number of license conditions in particular:

·  The club-scan system was inoperative over a prolonged period of time;

·  Failure to conduct physical searches on each and every occasion; and

·  Admission beyond permitted hours.

The sub-committee was not satisfied on the police evidence that the premises are directly connected to crime and disorder incidents outside the premises and therefore find insufficient justification for a revocation of the licence.  In addition the identified breaches of the conditions cannot be remedied by adding further conditions as the existing conditions on the licence are adequate to promote the licensing objectives when complied with.

The sub-committee views the breach of any condition seriously and in view of the above identified breaches the sub-committee decided to suspend the licence for a period of 21 days.

Appeal Rights.

This decision is open to appeal by either:

a)  The applicant for the review;

b)  The premises licence holder; or

c)  Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices chief executive for the magistrates court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision. This decision does not have effect until either

a)  The end of the period for appealing against this decision; or

b)  In the event of any notice of appeal being given, until the appeal is disposed of.