Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: August 26, 2025

Purpose:

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.