Content

In considering this application, the Sub-Committee have
regard to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and
disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children
from harm, public safety, as well as the Council’s Statement
of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s
guidance.
 
In particular, the Sub-Committee considered the
implications of what was said and written by the parties in
relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of
crime and disorder, and public safety.
 
The Sub-Committee appreciated that work had been done in
relation to the boat, and that as the police indicated, the police
have no current safety concerns.
 
However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that whilst Mr.
Rose had assured them that there will be a security policy and
dispersal plan, there was no evidence of these before the
Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied that
there were adequate measures in place to address public
safety.
 
The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had
not produced any evidence of adequate measures to prevent noise
breakout, not only in relation to music, but also in relation to a
significant number of patrons attending as well as going to and
from the event.
 
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns about this expressed
by the police and Environmental Health.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that according to the police,
there was a poor track record in relation to crime and disorder and
prevention of public nuisance relating to past
events.  
 
Having regard to the oral and written submissions, the
Sub-Committee was satisfied that allowing the TEN to proceed would
undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and
disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and ensuring public
safety. The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore to issue a
counter-notice.
 
The Sub-Committee would ask all the parties to note that
although TENs are a light touch regime and the engagement that
might be expected in respect of a TEN may often be less than that
for a new premises licence application, there have now been a
considerable number of TENs sought for these premises, generally
all of a similar nature. All of those have attracted
objections from the police and environmental health.
 
The apparent lack of dialogue between the parties
potentially means that there is no scope for any compromise because
once the application for a counter-notice comes before the
Sub-Committee, we can only consider the TEN as given and cannot
change any aspect of it.
 
The Sub-Committee would like to remind the police and
Environmental Health of their ability to engage with the premises
user in the representations period and modify the TEN as they think
appropriate which, if accepted, will result in the withdrawal of
their objection. Equally, the premises user has been informed that
it may not be the best course of action to give the TEN on
the basis of the event being a test, rather than seeking to
work with environmental health beforehand so that, for example,
appropriate sound levels might be set. The Sub-Committee notes that
such dialogue may not resolve matters. However, it might well
assist in narrowing the issues which the Sub-Committee can focus
upon.