Agenda item
Application by the Metropolitan Police for the review of premises held by Macneil Ltd for the premises "Everest Spice Lounge", (Honeypot Lane, HA7 1EF"), pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing act 2003.
Minutes:
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
PC Paul Whitcomb Metropolitan Police
Ms Susana Figueiredo Licensing Inspector
APPLICANT
Mr Nilesh Lukka (Director of MacNeil Limited)
Mr Bhattarai (the DPS) attended the hearing to represent the premises licence holder.
Decision:
The Sub-Committee concluded that the application by the Metropolitan Police to review a premises licence relating to Everest Spice The Honeypot, Honey Pot Lane, Stanmore HA7 1EF be granted but subject to the conditions set out in the decision letter below.
The application
The Sub-Committee has given careful consideration to an application by the police, under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, to review the premises licence relating to Everest Spice The Honeypot, Honeypot Lane, Stanmore HA7 1EF. MacNeil Limited is the premises licence holder and Mr Mitra Bandhu Bhattarai is the designated premises supervisor. The grounds for review are the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance, and public safety. The licensing authority, acting in its capacity as a responsible authority, made a relevant representation too.
The premises are licensed for the sale of alcohol and for the provision of regulated entertainment and late night refreshment as follows:
Days of week |
Alcohol |
Entertainment (with the exception of Mondays) |
Late night refreshment |
Opening/Closing hours
|
Sundays to Thursdays
|
12.00 until 00.30 |
19.00 until 00.00
|
23.00 until 00.00 |
12.00 until 01.00 |
Fridays and Saturdays
|
12.00 until 01.30 |
19.00 until 01.00 |
23.00 until 01.30 |
12.00 until 02.00 |
The premises is also authorised to provide these licensable activities during non-standard timings.
The application details and other papers considered by us are published on the Council’s website and are not repeated in this decision notice. In summary, the Police raised concerns about two incidents of violence and disorder on the premises on Sunday 12 April 2015 and on Friday 26 June 2015. According to the police, both incidents involved fights which started inside the premises.
The police pointed out the premises is one of the larger pubs in Brent with a ground floor capacity of 295 and comprises of 3 bar areas with seating, a restaurant, a front beer garden, a rear beer garden, a shisha area (which has its own bar and a capacity of 90) and a car park for approximately 20 cars. As a result of these incidents, the police expressed their concern about the premises relying on a single door supervisor at the weekends even though it is a large premises, is very busy and there have been actual and serious incidents of violence. The police recommended that a minimum of 4 door supervisors should be deployed at the weekends. The police claimed that this was rejected by the management as they do not think a “family restaurant” needs so many door supervisors and because of the “financial cost”.
The police requested that the current conditions of licence be varied or additional conditions be imposed.
The licensing authority representation reported on the findings of a visit on 31 July 2015.
The hearing
Mr Nilesh Lukka (Director of MacNeil Limited) and Mr Bhattarai (the DPS) attended the hearing to represent the premises licence holder.
PC Paul Whitcomb represented the police.
Ms Susana Figueiredo represented the licensing authority.
The decision
We have listened to all the representations and have read all the material.
We have had regard to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s own licensing policy.
We have taken into account our duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to have due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of our discretion on, and the need to do all we reasonably can, to prevent crime and disorder in our area and the misuse of alcohol.
We confirm that in making our decision we have sought to promote the licensing objectives.
We also confirm that we have imposed further regulation only if satisfied that it was necessary, proportionate and appropriate to do so in order to promote the licensing objectives and justified on the facts of this particular case.
On the facts of this application, it is particularly noteworthy that, according to statutory guidance, we should accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the police unless we have evidence that to do so would not be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. However, it remains incumbent on the police to ensure that their representations can withstand the scrutiny to which they would be subject at a hearing.
At the hearing, Mr Lukka maintained his objection to deploying 4 door supervisors. This was the main point of contention. We watched the CCTV footage of the fighting at the premises on Friday 26 June 2015 and witnessed for ourselves that it was totally unrealistic and dangerous for a single door supervisor to be expected to maintain order in that kind of situation. Members of the public and members of staff (including the door supervisor himself) were exposed to a greater risk of harm because of an insufficient number of door supervisors. The threat of violence and the fighting itself went on for quite some time; there were a lot of people involved; weapons were wielded and a member of staff was punched in the face. We also got a sense of the size of the premises, the layout of the various bars, and how busy it can be at the weekends.
Mr Lukka described the incident as unfortunate and isolated. He said that the financial cost of 4 door supervisors was not justified and that there had been no further incidents since June. Mr Lukka told us that he was only willing to agree to 2 door supervisors on Fridays and Saturdays.
PC Whitcomb suggested that a 50:1 ratio of customers to door supervisors was considered to be good practice and complained about Mr Lukka’s failure to engage with the police after the police made this application to review the premises licence.
In our view the incident on 26 June 2015 clearly demonstrated that there is a need for more door supervisors to be deployed at the premises for all the reasons we have already mentioned. This was a very serious incident which actually took place on the premises. It soon got out of hand and the escalation of violence was alarming.
The incident exposed the fact that the premises is ill-equipped to respond to serious incidents of violence and disorder. What happened that Friday night is something which the management need to take responsibility for at least in licensing terms i.e. preventing crime and disorder and ensuring public safety. To date, the management have failed to take adequate steps to reassure the police and us that they could cope better with incidents of violence in the future. The need for us to impose tighter controls is therefore unavoidable.
In all the circumstances, we have decided to replace the following conditions relating to door supervisors with the existing condition:
If the premises is open for the sale of alcohol after midnight on Friday and Saturday, from 20.00 hours, at least one door supervisor per 75 customers shall be deployed at the premises, subject to a minimum of two, until the premises closes and all customers have left. All door supervisors shall be authorised by the Security Industry Authority.
If the premises is open for the sale of alcohol after midnight on Sunday to Thursday, from 20.00 hours, at least one door supervisor per 75 customers shall be deployed at the premises, subject to a minimum of one, until the premises closes and all customers have left. All door supervisors shall be authorised by the Security Industry Authority.
In our view, this flexible approach to determining the minimum number of door supervisors strikes a fair and proportionate balance between the need to promote the licensing objectives and ensuring that the financial impact of additional regulation on the premises is minimised.
In addition, the parties agreed the following conditions and we confirm that it is appropriate for them to be added to the licence:
From 20.00 hours on Friday, Saturday and Sunday there shall be at least one member of staff who is a personal licence holder on duty. They shall remain on duty until the end of the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol, or at any such time that alcohol sales conclude.
Any staff directly involved in selling alcohol for retail to customers, staff who provide training and all managers shall undergo regular training of the Licensing Act 2003. The training shall be documented and signed by the DPS and the member of staff receiving the training. The training log shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by the police and relevant authorities upon request.
In summary, in response to this review application, the additional conditions set out above have been added to the licence.
Informative
We would advise the premises to ensure that there is full CCTV coverage of the premises at all times and implement proper counting systems to ensure that the capacity of the premises is not exceeded and that the correct number of door staff are deployed. We also hope that moving forward the premises will properly engage with the authorities.
The effective date of this decision
This decision does not take effect until the end of the period for appealing this decision or, if appropriate, the outcome of the appeal.
Right of Appeal
The parities have a right of appeal to Brent Magistrates’ Court against this decision.
If you wish to appeal you must notify Brent Magistrates’ Court within a period of 21 days starting with the day on which the Council notified you of this decision.
Supporting documents:
- REVIEW REPORT - Everest Spice Lounge, Honeypot Lane, HA7 1EF, item 5. PDF 41 KB
- Application to Review, item 5. PDF 557 KB
- Licensing Inspector - Representation, item 5. PDF 210 KB
- Violent Disorder Report, item 5. PDF 253 KB
- Redated - GBH Report[1], item 5. PDF 168 KB
- Licence (Redacted Premises), item 5. PDF 192 KB
- Everest Spice Lounge OS Map, item 5. PDF 2 MB