Content

In reaching its decision, the
Licensing Sub-Committee (“LSC”) considered the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act
2003, the Regulations made thereunder, and the Guidance issued by
the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its
functions, the LSC did so with a view to promoting the licensing
objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,
the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children
from harm. 
 
Having considered all written
representations, evidence, and oral submissions, the LSC resolved
to  modify the terminal hours for the
permitted licensing activities.
 
The permitted times for
licensable activities are modified and all licensable activities
shall terminate as follows:
 
Monday to Wednesday, 2.30am and
the premises shall be closed to members of the public at
3am.
 
Thursday to Sunday, 3.30am and
the premises shall be closed to members of the public at
4am
 
The interim steps imposed on
31st July 2025 shall cease to apply
 
No new interim steps are
imposed. 
 
 
 
 
Basis of Decision
 
The LSC noted the supplementary
evidence from the police within the letter dated 18th August 2025
and the further written submission regarding street crime and the
crimes associated with the hayatt lounge.
 
The LSC noted the submissions
from counsel for the police and the breakdown of the serious crime
incidents, with the majority being after 2am. The crimes were
outside and in the immediate vicinity and involved patrons of the
premises or those attempting to gain entry and violence involving
the security staff of the premises. The crime and disorder was
associated with the premises. The LSC’s attention was drawn
to paragraphs 11.7, 11.20 and 11.26 of the section 182 Guidance
which recognises criminal activities taking place despite the best
efforts of the premises and full compliance with conditions, the
Licensing Authority is still empowered to take appropriate steps,
and has a duty, to remedy the problems to promote the licensing
objectives.  The increase in violence
has been incremental as the premises business model changed to a
late night club and bar and more so since the variation permitting
vertical drinking in designated areas of the premises, from July
2024. There were no relationship issues between the premises and
the police. There were 48 incidents of crime associated the
premises, more than other similar venues.
 
The LSC noted the submissions
of counsel for the Licence holder and premises: There should be a
reasonable remedy, not behead for a migraine. The summary review by
the police was an attack on the premises. The premises had suffered
a 74% drop in customer fall during the period of the Interim steps.
The business could not survive if the operating hours were reduced
to 1.30am. The problems of crime and disorder were not connected to
the mis-management of the premises, which is accepted by the
police. The premises serves the African community. The problems are
all outside the premises, not inside. The premises had discussed
the problems with the police before the trigger incident, for
the  police summary review application,
on 27th July 2025. The previous noise issues had been resolved by
the premises. The submission regarding paragraph 9.44 was noted,
that the LSC, when considering any action or appropriate step,
should consider the burden of any condition and that the LSC were
entitled to consider the financial effect upon the premises.
Reduced hours would be effectively a revocation of the licence.
However, the LSC noted during the deliberation of its decision,
that paragraph 9.44 goes onto state that it is imperative the
authority ensures that the factors which form the basis of its
determination are limited to consideration of the promotion of the
objectives and nothing outside those parameters. It was conceded by
counsel for the licence holder that there had been an increase in
crime and disorder.
 
In response Counsel for the
Police submitted that very emotive language was being used, the
police application was not an attack on the premises. The premises
are causing, and there has been, an increase in crime and disorder,
as conceded by counsel for the licence holder. The increase in the
operating hours has increased the crime incidents. The issues are
not about what the business controls but that the premises is
attracting people into the area, with late night alcohol provision
by the premises. The premises concede that reduced hours would
help, as they have offered to reduce activities by 1 hour daily. It
was whether the hours should be reduced further. All crime
incidents bar 3 were after 2am.  It was
the premises which have not been proactive in promoting the
licensing objectives, the previous noise nuisance being only
resolved after intervention by authorities, and the expert report
for this review being served on 20th August 2025, again reactive.
The reduction of hours offered by the licence holder did not go far
enough. There is already significant security and cameras which
have not prevented the serious crime and disorder.
 
Counsel for the premises
repeated that the LSC do not destroy the business, it is a valuable
premises for the African and Caribbean community. The general
manager of the premises made the same submission, and not to cause
50 people to be unemployed.
 
The LSC noted the submissions
of the expert for the premises. The LSC were not persuaded that
recommendations of the expert or additional security would make any
difference to the problems outside the premises, there are already
considerable security measures in place.    
 
 
The LSC determined that there
had been an increase in crime and disorder with the increase in the
opening hours of the business. The incidents relied upon by the
police for the summary review were an average of one per month. The
absence of a police presence was failing to prevent the crime and
disorder.  There was no crime inside the
premises or breach of licence conditions.
 
 
Any party aggrieved by this
decision may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21
days.