Agenda item
Application by Tavi Thevarajah for Temporary Event Notice on 6-7 April 2014 for 'Carlton Lounge' (232-234 Kingsbury Road, London, NW9 0BH) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003
Decision:
That the application by Mr Tavi Thevarajah for Temporary Event Notices on 6-7 April 2014 for ‘Carlton Lounge’ (232-234 Kingsbury Road, London NW9 0BH) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be refused.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that the applicant had not provided sufficient information demonstrating that he would be able to promote the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm). In view of these circumstances, the sub-committee refused the application for the Temporary Event Notice and a counter notice be issued accordingly.
Minutes:
Members decided to receive representations for the applications relating to Carlton Lounge at the same time.
Yogini Patel, Regulatory Services Manager informed the Sub-Committee that the application was for temporary event notices (TENs) for the sale of alcohol, provision of regulated entertainment and late night refreshment on Saturday 6 April from 03:01 hours until 06:00 hours on Sunday 6 April and on Sunday 7 April until 01:01 hours until 0300 hours on Monday 7 April 2014. She clarified that the premises had current premises licence for licensable activities until 0100 hours Sunday – Thursday and until 0300 hours Friday and Saturday.
PC Nicola McDonald, Metropolitan Police was invited to make her representation and highlighted the following points:
· The current operator and notice giver Mr Tavi Thevarajah was the designated premises supervisor (DPS) for the venue.
· On 2nd March 2014 at around 0330 hours five emergency calls were made to Police relating to a large fight and serious disturbance at the Carlton Lounge.
· Two allegations of assault were made to police that involved continuing investigations. Officers who attended the scene reported there were drunkenness and young persons involved.
· Mr Thevarajah had informed the Police that the event was for an 18th birthday party at the venue but despite two written requests, Mr Thevarajah had not made available to the Police a copy of the CCTV footage in accordance with the premises licence for the venue or offered an explanation for his failure to do so.
· The Police learnt that that the CCTV machine was not recording the event.
· Mr Thevarajah the DPS failed to provide an incident book and falsified evidence relating to door supervisors, a breach of conditions.
· The Police would need to examine the footage, speak to the DPS and risk assess where that party went so badly wrong leading to serious disorder and crime.
· Without the submission of further details at this stage to manage and reduce the risks associated with another birthday party, it was the Police’s view that if this event was allowed to go ahead there would be an increased risk of public nuisance and crime at the location.
In response to members’ questions, PC McDonald offered the following clarifications;
· A written submission from Mr Thevarajah confirming that the door supervisors left the premises before the end of the event constituted a breach of licence condition.
· Instead of qualified door supervisors Mr Thevarajah used appropriate adults to control the event.
Mr Tavi Theverajah the applicant was invited to make his representations and submitted the following:
· He read out a copy of an email submission from one of the door supervisors circulated at the hearing and which recounted the circumstances leading up to the events that happened at the birthday party on 2 March 2014.
· Since 2012, he had applied for three TENs which had all passed without any incident.
In response to members’ questions, Mr Theverajah confirmed the following;
· He was not aware of the licensing objectives and that he had not offered external training to his staff.
· The incident book had been always been kept in his office, although it was not made available to the Police.
· He would use all three bars including the sisha bar in order to accommodate a capacity of 450 persons for each event
In her summing up, PC McDonald submitted the following:
· There was a demonstrable need for the DPS to run the premises in accordance with the licensing objectives.
· Mr Theverajah the DPS had shown a total lack of the licensing objectives.
· The grant of this TEN would further exacerbate the licensing objectives of crime and disorder.
In summing up, Mr Theverajah submitted the following:
· The incident that took place on 2 March 2014 was beyond his control.
· The TENs for 6 and 7 April would be for parties for those within age range 45 and 50.
· He would close the lounge and the Sushi lounge and the restaurant to facilitate the parties.
· He would ensure that all trouble makers were banned from the premises.
The hearing was adjourned at 12:30pm and all parties left the room to enable the sub-committee to make its decision.
The meeting was reconvened at 12:40pm and the sub-committee delivered its decision as detailed below.
That the application by Mr Tavi Thevarajah for a Temporary Event Notice on Saturday 6 April from 0301 hours until 0600 hours on Sunday 6 April and on Sunday 7 April from 0101 hours until 0300 hours on Monday 7 April 2014 for ‘Carlton Lounge’ (232-234 Kingsbury Road, London NW9 0BH) pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 be refused.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that the applicant had not provided sufficient information demonstrating that he would be able to promote the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm). In view of these circumstances, the sub-committee refused the application for a Temporary Event Notice.
Supporting documents:
- TEN - Carlton Lounge 6-7 April 2014-covering-report, item 3. PDF 45 KB
- Carlton-Application, item 3. PDF 791 KB
- Carlton-Police_-_Representation, item 3. PDF 90 KB
- Carlton-Applicant's_Response_to_Police_Objection, item 3. PDF 86 KB