Content

 

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel
hearing to determine an application for the grant of a premises
licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003

 

PREMISES:    Cineworld Cinema, Unity Square, Hounslow TW3
1EL

 

APPLICANT:  Cineworld Holdings Limited (Company number 05212440)
  
TAKE
NOTICE THAT on Wednesday 20th
November 2024 following a hearing before the
Licensing and General Purposes Sub Committee (the
“Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing
Authority for the Premises RESOLVED that:

 
the
application for the variation of a premises licence for
Cineworld Cinema, Unity Square, Hounslow TW3 1EL
(the “Premises”)
is GRANTED subject to the modifications
and conditions stated below:
 

REASONS:

 

1.         
The Panel convened to determine an application by
Cineworld Holdings Limited (Company number 05212440) (the
“Applicant”) to vary the existing
premises licence for the Premises under the Licensing Act
2003. 

 

2.         
The Premises is a cinema situated in a development
consisting of commercial units on the ground with residential flats
above them.  The Premises are currently
licenced for the playing of films, plays, live music and recorded
music, as well as for the provision of late-night refreshment and
the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises.  A copy of the existing licence and the licensable
hours and opening hours is shown as Appendix B to the Agenda (the
“Existing Licence”).

 

3.         
The application, a copy of which is shown as Appendix A, sought to vary the
premises licence to
extend the hours for the licensable activities and opening hours as
follows: 
 

Supply of alcohol for consumption on the
premises:
Monday to Sunday:  11:00
to 02:00 (the following day)
 

Plays, films, live music, recorded music
(indoors):
Monday to Sunday:  24
hours

 

Late night refreshment
(indoors):
Monday to Sunday:  23:00
to 05:00 (the following day)

 

Hours premises are open to the
public:
Monday to Sunday:  24
hours
 
The
application also included proposed conditions to be added to the
Premises Licence.
 

4.         
The hearing was held in-person before a 3-Member
Licensing Panel.  All Members of the
Licensing Panel were in attendance throughout the hearing, and
during deliberation which took place in a closed
session. 

 

5.         
The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the
relevant information including:
 

·      
Written and Oral representations by all the
parties

·      
The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps
appropriate to promotethe
Licensing Objectives

·      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003 (the “Statutory
Guidance”)

·      
Hounslow Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy 2020-2025 (the “Council’s
Policy”)

·      
The Human Rights Act 1998

 

6.         
During the consultation period representations were
received from seven parties, all of whom were local residents and their representations were shown
as Appendix C.  Another resident
submitted some questions, which were responded to by the Applicant,
and which was shown as Appendix D.  The
representations raised a number of
issues, with the main issues falling under the prevention of crime
and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance objectives.
Representations were made about noise nuisance and anti-social
behaviour that the residents said they had experienced due to the
cinema and its customers.

 

7.         
The Applicant was represented by their Solicitor, Mr
Taylor, and the Manager for the Premises was also in attendance,
although he did not speak.  A number of the objectors were also
present.

 

8.         
Mr Taylor stated that the Applicant was not seeking
to operate 24 hours a day but had made this application to give
flexibility to their performance schedules and to spread out their
showings during the day. In particular, he reiterated comments made
in the application that the cinema shows, a
number of Bollywood and Telugu films that had long running
times, sometimes with an intermission, and that they could not be
put on at a late time slot as the film would not finish before the
end of their licensing hours.  It was
stated that they liaised with the Police before making their
application, who had suggested some additional conditions if they
wanted to operate later, which the Applicant had agreed to and
as a result of which the Police had not
made a formal representation.  As for
the extended alcohol licensing hours, he stated that the primary
intention of going to the cinema is to watch films, not to
drink.

 

9.         
In relation to some of the specific incidents raised
by the objectors, Mr Taylor informed the Panel that they had
checked their records and on the day it was reported people were
sitting outside the cinema at 2.00am, 
the Premises had been closed for about 1 ½ hours that day
and on another dates the Premises were still open, and therefore he
did not consider these issues to be associated with the
Premises.  On the 26th September 2024, when fireworks were let off in
the area outside the Premises, the cinema was holding a preview
showing of Devara and the fireworks had
nothing to do with Cineworld   Mr
Taylor went on to say that the Premises will be launching another
Bollywood film next month and so they would be bringing in
additional security for that event, with bag searches.  Furthermore, most cinema tickets were now bought
online, which enabled the venue to better anticipate expected
numbers for future showings. 
 It was also stated that the Premises
had sometimes operated longer hours under a temporary event notice
without any problems.

 

10.      
The objectors, several of whom stated they also
attended the Premises and were generally supportive of the Premises
and local businesses, felt that it would be the presence of the
Premises that was attracting these customers in the first place,
and that they had not felt that the Applicant had done much, if
anything, to deal with their customers. 
They stated the incidents on the 26th September 2024,
when fireworks were let off outside the Premises, supposedly by
customers of the Applicant, caused a lot of alarm to local
residents as in addition to the noise nuisance, some of the
fireworks went in the direction of their flats and even though the
Police attended no one did anything to stop the people involved or
move them on.  The feeling was that the
Applicant had relinquished any responsibility for this incident as
well as in dealing with people coming to the area to visit the
Premises.  It was stated that residents
were experiencing nuisance on a regular basis and that complaints
had been made to their managing agents about the issue.

 

11.      
Questions were raised about the extended alcohol
hours and how the limitation of 2 alcoholic drinks per customer
would be supervised, and the Panel was informed that the Applicant
had a tried and tested method of allocating paper tickets to
customers wanting to have alcohol and stamping the tickets when
they were given a drink.  Mr Taylor
confirmed this could mean someone who was not drinking could use
their ticket to buy alcohol for someone who was, but he again
stressed that drinking alcohol was not the primary purpose for
people going to a cinema. 

 

12.      
Furthermore, the additional conditions include a
requirement to ensure customers dispersed from the area, and that
they used SIA staff.  The objectors
raised concerns as to whether the requirement for at least one SIA
staff would be enough, although the Panel notes that the proposed
conditions included a requirement on the DPS to carry out a risk
assessment for further SIA staff.

 

13.      
The Applicant noted that the Premises were in the
Council’s Cumulative Impact Area, but they had not believed
that the application together with the additional conditions, would
add to the cumulative impact. 

 

14.      
The Statutory Guidance states that:
 

“2.15 The 2003 Act enables licensing
authorities and responsible authorities, through representations,
to consider what constitutes public nuisance and what is
appropriate to prevent it in terms of conditions attached to
specific premises licences and club premises certificates. It is
therefore important that in considering the promotion of this
licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible
authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the
specific premises on persons living and working (including those
carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be
disproportionate and unreasonable. The issues will mainly concern
noise nuisance, light pollution, noxious smells and litter.

 

15.      
As stated by Mr Taylor, none of the Responsible
Authorities had submitted a representation in respect of this
application, and it was stated that the Applicant had liaised with
the Police, who, according to the Statutory Guidance, the Licensing
Authority would look to as the main source of advice on crime and
disorder.  On the other hand, one of the
objectors informed the Panel that he had also spoken to the Police
(apparently the same Officer who liaised with the Applicant) who
supposedly advised him to attend the hearing and put forward his
objections.

 

16.      
With regard to
the additional conditions in the application, these
would only come into effect on days when the licensable activities
were scheduled to finish after 02:30 in the morning, which was
considerably into the more sensitive hours of the day when the
Statutory Guidance says any appropriate conditions should be
focussed upon.   This means that if
the Premises were scheduled to close at 02:29 in the morning, you
could have customers leaving the Premises from 23:00 at night to
02:29 in the morning without any requirement on the Applicant to
have a SIA guard, or to ensure customers dispersed and did not
loiter in the area.    The
Panel noted the arguments from both sides, with the Applicant
denying there was any evidence that its customers were responsible
for any of the noise nuisance and ASB, and the objectors saying
they believe its customers were responsible for this and that they
regularly experienced issues.   In
the Panel’s opinion, with the Premises located adjacent to
residential tower blocks, if customers left the Premises in the
early hours there was a real risk this could cause noise nuisance
to residents in those flats.   The
Panel considered that the additional conditions proposed by the
Applicant should take effect from an earlier time and with the
Licensing Authority’s Policy having a core hours policy that
has a termination time of 00:00 on Friday and Saturday, the Panel
believed this would be a reasonable time from which the
Applicant’s proposed conditions should take
effect.

 

17.      
Whilst customers could also cause problems as they
dispersed down nearby roads, the Statutory Guidance is clear that
the Applicant is only responsible for customers in the immediate
vicinity of the Premises. The Existing Licence already contained
conditions for CCTV and for signage asking customers to leave the
area quietly. 

 

18.      
It was noted during the hearing that one of the
additional conditions to come into effect after 02:30 would be for
there to be at least one SIA security staff member on duty after
20:00 until closing.  However, if the
Premises were to remain open for 24 hours, that would mean the
Premises would not be “closing” and would be required
to have at least one SIA staff member from 20:00 on day 1 and the
entirety of day 2 until the Premises actually
closed on whichever day that was.   Mr Taylor noted this oversight and suggested
that in that case, the SIA could remain on duty until 09:00 the
following morning. 

 

19.      
Whilst not addressed during the hearing, a similar
problem concerning a lack of a termination time in situations where
the Premises remained open for 24 hours also arose with the
Applicant’s other proposed conditions regarding dispersal of
its customers that would take effect “once the premises is
closed”.   Therefore, if a
variation was granted, the Applicant’s proposed conditions
would need to be amended to provide for a termination time for the
same where the Premises are scheduled to remain open for 24
hours.  With the Applicant suggesting
that where the Premises remain open for 24 hours the requirement
for the SIA staff member could end at 09:00 the following day, the
Panel considered this same time would be an appropriate end time
for the other proposed conditions.

 

20.      
If the time from which the additional conditions
come in to effect was brought in from midnight rather than 02:30
and the proposed conditions modified to take account of the
situation where the Premises remain open for 24 hours, then the
Panel was of the view that this would not add to the cumulative
impact in the area, and the conditions would also be sufficient to
support the licensing objectives. 

 

21.      
Having taken all matters into account the Panel
therefore decided to GRANT the application for a premises
licence, amended as follows:
 

Supply of alcohol for consumption on the
premises:
Monday to Sunday:  11:00
to 02:00 (the following day)
 

Plays, films, live music, recorded music
(indoors):
Monday to Sunday:  24
hours

 

Late night refreshment
(indoors):
Monday to Sunday:  23:00
to 05:00 (the following day)

 

Hours premises are open to the
public:
Monday to Sunday:  24
hours
 

The following additional conditions to
apply only when licensable activities are scheduled to finish after
00:00:

 

1.         
At least one SIA trained security officer
will be on duty after 20:00 hours until closing or until 09:00 the
following day, whichever is the earlier, and further SIA trained
staff will be deployed at the discretion of the DPS.

 

2.         
The DPS will be responsible for carrying
out a risk assessment for the need for further SIA
staff.

 

3.         
The DPS and staff will be responsible for
making sure their customers leave and disperse the area from 00:00
to 09:00 the following day, or until and including when the
premises is closed, whichever is the earlier.

 

4.     After 20:00, the premises will
implement a method to ensure customers may not purchase more than
two alcoholic drinks per person.
 

 

Right to Appeal
 

22.      
Any party aggrieved with the
decision of the Licensing Panel on one or more grounds set
out in
schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local
Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of this
decision.