To determine the application in the light
of written and oral evidence and resolve to take such steps as
considered appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing
objectives of;
a) The prevention of crime and
disorder
b)
The
prevention of public nuisance
c)
Public
safety
d) The protection of children from
harm
Minutes:
The Chairman clarified the police evidence would be heard in private in accordance with Regulation 14 of the hearing regulations we consider that the public interest in so doing outweighs the public interest in that part of the hearing taking place in public. She went through a few points and mentioned that hearings were an administrative function the Sub-Committee were not to make legal rulings legal advice had been taken. The Licensing Act section 53c says the Sub-Committee must hold a hearing to determine the application and this statutory duty had been confirmed by the high court case of Lalee. Nothing in the surrender provisions impacts on the other functions of the licensing authority. The premises licence isn’t extinguished until the period of reinstatement is over, it is a matter for the Fat Cat Rumshack to participate in the hearing or not. This is not the place for legal challenge. Summary reviews are to be taken at a swift action. The safeguard for the Fat Cat Rumshack is the appeals to the Magistrates Courts.
The Chairman mentioned the case was the final hearing for the summary review for the Fat Cat Rumshack in Weymouth and asked the Licensing Team Leader to present her outline report.
The Licensing Team
Leader confirmed this was the full review hearing under section 53c of the
Licensing Act for the premises known as Fat Cat Rumshack,
covered by licence WPL0400 for the Rumshack, 38
Maiden Street. The Summary Review was
applied for by Dorset Police under section 53A of the Licensing Act which
allowed for an immediate intervention by the Licensing Authority and interim
measures to be imposed on a premises while the hearing was organised, and
representations are invited.
Section 12.2 of the Guidance stated that the powers were aimed at
tackling serious crime or serious disorder or both and they could only be
applied for when accompanied by a certificate from a senior police officer at
the rank of superintendent or above. In
paragraph 12.5 there was a definition for serious crime which as it was in
section 81(2) and (3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In paragraph 12.6 of the Guidance it stated
there was no definitive list of behaviours that constitute serious disorder,
and the matter was one for judgement by the local police.
The summary review was applied for on the 16 July 2020 and the premises
have been closed since the 17 July 2020 when the Authority decided it was
appropriate to take the interim steps of suspending the license.
The license holder made representations against those interim steps
which the Licensing Authority considered at a hearing on the 27 July
2020 where it was decided those steps were still the appropriate measures to
take and the suspension of the license remained.
The application to review the premises license was advertised on the
premises for at least 7 days and there was a 10-day window between the 17-27
July 2020 for responsible authorities or anyone else to make a representation.
Representations had been received from:
A. Five responsible
authorities including the Licensing Authority
B. The Town Council
C. A group of residents;
and
D. One individual.
Names of individuals who make up the residents' group had been supplied
to officers and had been redacted at their request. The Licensing Team Leader
confirmed they all lived in the immediate area of the premises or had lived in
that area recently.
The Licensing Team Leader confirmed the Sub-Committee would consider
everything in front of them from both the report and all its appendices and the
oral submissions at this hearing. They would attach appropriate weight to each
piece of information before them and then decide whether to take one of the
steps available to them under Section 53C of the Licensing Act which they
consider to be appropriate and proportionate to promoting the licensing
objectives of:
a. The prevention of
crime and disorder
b. The prevention of
public nuisance
c. Public safety
d. The protection of
children from harm
The steps contained in section 9.10 of the report were:
a. Modification of the
conditions of the licence
b. Exclusion of a
licensable activity from the scope of the license
c. Removal of the Designated
Premises Supervisor from the license
d. Suspend the license
for a period not exceeding 3 months
e. Revoke the license
Having made that decision which will not take effect for 21 days (or if
appealed until an appeal is heard) the Sub-Committee will consider whether it
remains appropriate to keep the interim steps:
a. remain in place, or
b. be modified, or
c. be withdrawn.
This is a civil matter not a criminal matter when the Sub-Committee
consider the evidence before them must use the evidential test of the “balance
of probabilities” not “whether it is beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Paragraph 11.24 states “The
licensing authority’s role when determining such a review is not therefore to
establish the guilt or innocence of any individual but to ensure the promotion
of the crime prevention objective.”
Paragraph 11.25
states “Reviews are part of the regulatory process introduced by the 2003 Act
and they are not part of criminal law and procedure. There is, therefore, no
reason why representations giving rise to a review of a premises licence need
be delayed pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”
There were no
questions from the Sub-Committee.
The Chairman asked
responsible parties present if they or Dorset Police had any questions they did not.
The Service Manager
Licensing mentioned the Licensing Authority had lodged representations in
support of a review of the premises license for the Fat Cat Rumshack. The premises should be operating at an
enhanced level but they were not run properly the Designated Premises
Supervisor (DPS) was weak and had not complied with the Licensing Act and for
this reason the Licensing Authority were seeking revocation of the
license. There had been a long history
of noncompliance with no less than 20 offences under various sections of the
Licensing Act. On the 6, 13 and 14 July
offences took place and three sets of statements from Licensing Enforcement
Officers had been completed. The Service
Manager Licensing had provided footage from Dorset CCTV from the 6, 13 and 14
July and despite repeated requests the license holder failed to provide footage
of CCTV. Statistics from the Ambulance
Service showing the number of call-outs had been provided. The license holder had offered alternative measures
but it was felt their proposal was insufficient.
Sub-Committee had
no questions.
Chairman asked
whether the age verification policy was in an obvious place.
The Service Manager
Licensing mentioned there had been no age policy in place at the premises in
his first report. Advice had been given
to the premises and on another visit this was in place. On 4 July a poster was up but the DPS could
not find the policy. The owner arrived
later and the policy was found behind the bar, a screwed up piece of paper,
unavailable to view and no copy of the full licence. On that occasion the policy was in place but
not previously.
Chairman asked
whether it came across as alarming that someone in the position of a DPS was
not fully aware of the conditions on a licence.
Officers confirmed it was alarming as they had been given verbal and
written warnings and were not complying with the conditions, he had not come
across that before.
The Chairman
enquired of the Service Manager Licensing what sort of welcome did he receive
on his visit. The Service Manager
Licensing mentioned he had visited a number of premises on 4 July as it was the
re-opening of the high street and pubs on the relaxation of the Covid-19
restrictions not all were perfect but when he arrived at the Fat Cat Rumshack it was chaotic, no one was on the door, loud music
was playing, there were lots of customers all standing at the bar huddled
together, no table service. The DPS was
not present, when he did arrive I asked to see his licence and copy of premises
licence I asked a colleague to send me a copy on my mobile device to
check. I conducted a licensing
inspection and found a large number of breaches in relation to CCTV and smaller
measures and door supervisor, risk assessment etc. All this has been detailed in my
representation. The DPS was helpful and
tried his best but was new, however, about halfway through the visit the owner
arrived and was aggressive with the Service Manager Licensing who got the
impression that if he had not been accompanied by Sergeant Gosling he
would have felt threatened. It seemed
the owner used intimidation to avoid action.
The Service Manager Licensing went through the breaches with the licence
holder who did not feel they were relevant, important or ought to be complied
with. By the end of the visit the owner
was more conciliatory. The Service
Manager Licensing was very concerned that if allowed to continue to operate
more breaches of conditions and more violence would be seen.
Regarding the
incident book the Chairman asked if there were any incidents reported in the
book. The Service Manager Licensing
confirmed the license clearly set out what that book should look like but it
did not exist there was a note book but nothing had been entered in it for a
considerable time and did not satisfy requirements and had not been used
properly.
Chairman had no
further questions and asked the responsible parties and the Licensing Officer
if they had any questions.
The Licensing
Officer mentioned when she visited the premises on the 9 July with Sergeant
Gosling she saw a book which had one incident dated 8 July stating four males
came into premises asking for Cocaine and one incident with no date and prior
to that the last entry was 20 July 2019.
The Chairman asked
what reception the Licensing Officer received from the license holder when
visiting the premises. The Licencing
Officer confirmed she always visited with police colleagues on the first and
second time Mr Butcher was present and on the third time Mr Lyones
with his representative Mr Munroe and Mr Lyones’ son
were present. They were not the
friendliest but nothing untoward happened.
The Chairman asked
the Sub-committee and any responsible party if they had any questions. Sergeant Gosling asked the Licensing Officer
to clarify why she always went with the police.
The Licensing Officer confirmed she went with a uniformed police officer
purely for safety.
Cllr Taylor asked
whether she felt threatened. She had not
felt threatened but as a lone female entering a place like that felt more
comfortable having a police officer present for security and support.
The Chairman
referred to one of the statements when the Licensing Officer had visited the
premises with Sergeant Gosling and in one of the statements the Licensing
Officer had been informed that they did not need a risk assessment or door
staff as they were an eatery. The
Licensing Officer confirmed the attitude of the license holder was that he did
not need a risk assessment he knew his premises.
Cllr Taylor was
surprised there were no backup documents as the premises were being run as
proper licensed premises. The Licensing
Officer mentioned that most places were happy to oblige if the police requested
CCTV footage and explained that officers would provide a data stick but the
license holder was not happy to provide the footage.
The Chairman
referred to the statement on the 4 July 2020 when officers were at the premises
and found timings of CCTV footage were incorrect. You would have to go back with a data
protection form that was odd and that Mr Lyones
considered as you had visited 4 times in a week it was harassment. The Licensing Officer confirmed the CCTV
footage had not been recorded from 4 to 8 July 2020. Mr Lyones’ son had
gone to the premises on 8 July to correct this but there was no harassment.
The Chairman asked
the Environmental Protection Officer for her comments she mentioned the
submission as part of the summary review on page 102 of the report. She gave a brief overview of the role of the
service part of which was to receive complaints regarding noise issues from
pubs and clubs. Over the past 12 months
Dorset Council had received 24 complaints relating to noise and unsocial
behaviour from premises in the area and had carried out late night visits
working closely with a local action group and installed noise monitoring
equipment. There had been 8 complaints
regarding the Fat Cat in last 12 months.
Officers asked complainants to complete a diary sheet over a 2 week
period to establish whether noise monitoring equipment needed to be installed
but unfortunately the complainants had not returned the diary sheets and only
one noise monitor had been installed.
The premises were subject to continued complaints. Mr Ireland, Case Officer agreed to take
questions.
Cllr Andrews
considered it must be very frustrating to have people complain, then not
complete and return the diary sheet. The
Case Officer confirmed that he received so many complaints regarding the Fat
Cat it was sad that some people had not returned their diary sheets which were
required to verify statutory nuisance.
One landlord had complained as a previous tenant had moved out because
of the noise and was concerned that the current tenant would soon move out.
Cllr Taylor asked
whether any of this information was married up to the incident book at the Fat
Cat. The Case Officer was not aware that
it was. He commented that some completed
diary sheets received had related to premises with anti-social behaviour and
people noise in the street.
Cllr Taylor
referred to the map and that the hot spot was indeed very hot. The Case Officer confirmed that it was he had
attended in December with colleagues from the Police, Fire and Licensing at
midnight and the area between the Fat Cat and the Duke of Cornwall was a mass
of people.
With regard to the
installation of sound limiters in neighbouring properties the Chairman asked
whether the noise was relatively high during the day when it should not have
been. The Case Officer confirmed he had
fitted noise monitoring equipment in one premises and a colleague had fitted
one relating to the Fat Cat. One
complainant wanted to deal with this informally and the Case Officer had met
with him and if recordings were taken had planned to play them back and let the
Fat Cat listen to them. He thought it
was a good idea but unfortunately that was as far as they had got as lockdown
came into force and everything came to a halt.
Chairman asked if
there were any questions from responsible parties. There were no questions from the
Sub-committee or responsible parties.
Dorset and
Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service – there was no representative from the
service.
Chairman asked the Environmental Health, Food and Port Health officers for
their representations Tamsin Horsler, Team Leader
and Marc Hortin were present they had visited the
premises on 15 July 2020 due to a number of concerns raised by the Licensing
Authority relating to unstable damaged flooring leading to the kitchen, oderous waste stored in a cupboard off of the kitchen, the
CCTV monitoring area was obstructed by cables and a ceiling light not working,
there was an unstable fridge in the bar area and they had various health and
safety concerns. Officers had left a
note at the end of their visit and have since followed up but the person
responsible for health and safety had left.
The Chairman asked
the officers if they would confirm they had contacted Mr Ronayne
on the 27 July 2020 regarding the waste left at the premises and had that now
been cleared. Officers confirmed they
had contacted Mr Ronayne who was no longer involved
with the premises and they were not aware that the waste had been cleared and
as the premises were closed under Food and Health and Safety, Environmental
Health, Food and Port Health had no jurisdiction but this was being followed
up.
Chairman had no
further questions and asked the Sub-Committee and responsible parties if they
had any further questions.
Cllr Andrews
referred to the report from the Senior Building Control Surveyor regarding the
deteriorating lintel and whether the smoke shelter was open as the Fire Brigade
had condemned it and had the lintel been replaced. The Team Leader had not seen the smoking
shelter in use during her visit and confirmed they had concerns about a lintel
above a window which had looked broken.
The Environmental
Protection Officer had spoken with the Building Control Officer on the 10
August 2020 regarding the smoking shelter on the first floor which colleagues
in Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue had prohibited in December 2019 and was
not in use when visited on Friday 13 December 2019. The lintel referred to was one of the main
windows on Maiden Street but he could not confirm if it had been replaced or
not.
The Chairman asked
the Sub-Committee and responsible parties if they had any further questions.
The Chairman asked
Nigel Shearing from Respect Weymouth if he had anything further he would like
to add to Respect’s representation. Mr
Shearing explained the group was set up about 12 months ago and had tried to be
constructive with the licensee and his partner but they were not
interested. It was very concerning that
the recording sheets had not been completed as people did not understand the
process, residents were fearful of retaliation and intimidation. In the last 12 months in the immediate area
at least 6 people had been forced to move out of the area, 2 of those were as a
direct result of the behaviour of the Fat Cat and 3 people were in the process
of moving out due to the behaviour of the Fat Cat. Residents were fearful of the Fat Cat bar
reopening as there would be more fighting, violence, drugs and underage
drinking and children being exposed to foul language, and loss of sleep
residents had had enough of the behaviour from this place to date.
The Chairman asked
what the situation was like with the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr Shearing confirmed the pandemic had
stopped a most of the antisocial behaviour and residents felt the situation was
far better and not so intimidating.
Cllrs Andrews and
Taylor thanked Mr Shearing for highlighting protection of children in the area
which was very concerning.
As there were no
more questions from the Sub-Committee or questions from responsible parties the
Chairman asked the parties concerned to sum up:
Respect Weymouth -
Mr Shearing confirmed everything was contained in Respect Weymouth’s report, 21
residents had over the last 12 months been frightened to make representations
or do anything but now wanted to see action taken. The police evidence had yet to be heard 90%
of problems that were causing disturbance and unrest for residents were not
actually dealt with by police at the time and most residents chose not to
report anything other than serious crime.
Environmental
Health, Food and Port Health - officers had nothing further to add to their
report.
Environmental
Protection - officers had nothing further to add.
The Licensing
Officer had nothing further to add.
The Service Manager
Licensing had nothing further to add to his report but made the observation
that this was one of the strongest cases he had seen as a Licensing Enforcement
Officer and the police report had not yet been considered or the 3 incidents
that triggered the Summary Review. He
was grateful, as the Licensing Authority, to all other responsible authorities
and local residents for supporting the review and felt it was extremely
important that premises that caused issues and did not uphold the licensing
objectives were dealt with appropriately.
He had nothing further to add.
The Licensing Team
Leader had nothing further to add.
Dorset Police -
Sergeant Gosling thanked the Service Manager Licensing and other partner
agencies as it was important for the residents not to be intimidated by the
owner of the Fat Cat.
The Solicitor
confirmed everything had been covered and nothing further to add.
It was proposed by
Cllr Andrews and seconded by Cllr Taylor that the Sub-committee move into
exempt business.
Decision
The Sub-Committee
decided that the premises licence for the Rumshack/Fat
Cat Bar should be revoked. In addition, the Sub-Committee decided that the
Interim Step of suspending the premises licence pending the full hearing should
remain in place pending any appeal to the Magistrates’ Court and determination
of that appeal.
Supporting documents: