Agenda item

Application to review a premises licence.

RECEIVED the application made by the Metropolitan Police for a review of the Premises Licence held by Mrs Ishil Bursuk at the premises known as and situated at The Black Horse, Public House, 179 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3 5JH. Also, supplementary information included in the supplementary agenda pack.

 

NOTED

 

1.    The introductory statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, including the following points:

a.  The review application was brought by the Police, in relation to the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.

b.  There had been a number of incidents of concern over the last two years, and a more serious incident on 6/8/15.

c.  The Police sought a suspension of the licence for one month and until the conditions had been implemented and checked; the removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS); and reduction in hours and licensable activities.

d.  She understood that Licensing Authority officers, Police, and the Premises Licence Holder and solicitor had met and had discussions prior to this hearing.

e.  All parties had agreed that it would be appropriate for the licence to be suspended for a minimum of one week rather than one month, and the relevant condition to be amended.

f.  In respect of the DPS, a new DPS had been appointed and application made though not yet issued.

g.  In respect of the reduction in licensable activities and hours, it had been agreed that hours for sale of alcohol should be 10:00 - 23:00 daily; films 10:00 – 23:00 every day; indoor sporting events 12:00 – 23:00; and removal of late night refreshment provisions.

h.  Recent legislation changes relating to regulated entertainment were highlighted, as set out in Para 5 of the report.

i.  Progress had therefore been made since yesterday and since publication of the supplementary agenda pack, with minor amendments made to proposed conditions. All conditions were agreed between all parties with the exception of Condition 19 in relation to introduction of SIA accredited door staff from the hours of 20:00 until close every day.

j.  As there had been agreement in respect of the Licensing Authority representation, this representation had now been withdrawn.

k.  Police had CCTV footage from the venue from 6/8/15 available if members wished to view it.

l.  As a result of the discussions and agreements between parties this morning, there would not be the need to receive as much detailed information at this hearing as there would at a disputed hearing.

 

2.    The statement of Ms Emma Dring, Barrister on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, including the following points:

a.  Largely the parties had agreed on an appropriate way forward and it was for the sub-committee to consider the appropriate steps to take.

b.  She set out why the agreed steps were considered appropriate.

c.  The reasons for bringing the review were set out clearly in PC Marsh’s statement in the agenda pack, triggered by the assault on 6/8/15. Mrs Bursuk, the premises licence holder, and her daughter were present and there were concerns regarding their response after the incident happened. No contact had been made by anyone at the premises to the Police or Ambulance service. There was lying and covering up when the Police attended, and the area had been cleaned. Mrs Bursuk in her statement accepted PC Marsh’s evidence that she did not act appropriately. The Police had CCTV footage of the incident available for members to view if they thought it would assist them to see it.

d.  There was also a long history to this matter. A review was brought in 2009 by a local resident and as a result the hours were reduced and additional conditions added.

e.  The representation by the Licensing Authority had now been withdrawn, but evidence in respect of officer visits and complaints was accepted by Mrs Bursuk. There had been repeated breaches of conditions, especially in respect of use of the outside space.

f.  The premises at least more recently had attracted an undesirable element including gang members. This was reflected in Police intelligence reports. There had been assaults over the years, and bottles had been used as weapons. Police had also had to attend the premises to deal with intoxicated people.

g.  Statutory guidance was that there needed to be a stepped approach to dealing with such issues at a licensed premises. There had been warnings and informal engagement with this premises. A more serious approach was now needed in response to the concerns.

h.  The causes of the problems were seen as poor management controls, and inability to comply with conditions and to uphold the licensing objectives. The need for strong management was paramount. The nature of the premises was attracting the wrong type of customer: this also needed to be addressed. There were inadequate controls on entry and removal of people on the premises. If appropriate controls had been in place, perhaps the undesirable elements would have been unable to become established in the first place.

i.  A first step was the removal of the DPS. An application had been received on Monday to make Mrs Wendy Glasgow the new DPS. This change had taken effect immediately and Mrs Glasgow was DPS on an interim basis until that application was decided. There was clearly no longer a recommendation to remove the DPS. A new condition was proposed in case the new DPS application was withdrawn or not granted, so that Mrs Bursuk or a member of her family could not step back in as DPS.

j.  A temporary suspension of the licence had been agreed between the parties as the aims could be achieved in a shorter period of time of seven days.

k.  Some proposed changes were quite radical, including reduced hours, new DPS and CCTV installation. These would take time and there would be an opportunity to impose these while the premises were closed. That time period would also break the pattern of use by customers and would give an element of deterrence.

l.  The opening hours of this venue, until 03:30, were exceptionally long hours more expected at a night club rather than a pub, and could send the wrong message. The victim of the incident on 6/8/15 stated that he arrived at the premises at 01:00. Police crime reports had been checked and it was found that three other assaults at the premises took place after 00:00. An assault on 1/2/14 took place at 00:30, on 24/5/14 a large fight took place at 00:30, and on 27/5/14 there was an assault between two customers at 00:30 – 00:50. Therefore there was a pattern of incidents in the later period.

m.  Police had been called on a number of occasions to intoxicated customers refusing to leave or causing problems. That level of intoxication was partly attributable to the late opening hours. The premises was also out of step with the Cumulative Impact Policy core hours.

n.  A reduction in hours had been agreed by the Premises Licence Holder for sale of alcohol to 23:00 and closing at 23:30. Late night refreshment had been taken out altogether.

o.  Proposed conditions had been set out in revised Annex 06 in the supplementary agenda pack. Condition 18 was proposed in relation to CCTV as there were some blind spots at the moment and Police believed it needed to be improved as it could provide vital evidence in case of crime. These requirements were agreed by the premises licence holder and would help further the crime and disorder objective.

p.  Condition 20 was agreed in relation to searching as a condition of entry. This would deter people who might be carrying drugs or weapons and give a visible sign of control.

q.  Condition 21 was agreed, with an appropriate addition this morning that customers were not to be supplied with glass bottles or drinking vessels with the exception of bottles of wine. This was in recognition of the business trying to become more food-based.

r.  It was noted in relation to Condition 26 that no reference had been made to training in relation to drug awareness so it was suggested that was included to make the condition comprehensive.

s.  An additional Condition 30 was agreed in relation to the DPS, to prevent the current Premises Licence Holder or her family members from becoming DPS and to prevent them from being involved in the day to day running of the premises. A new DPS would manage the premises and ensure that management concerns were appropriately dealt with.

t.  In relation to Condition 19, the parties had more discussion. It was the view of the Police that introduction of two door supervisors from 20:00 until close would be appropriate, practical and effective. There were concerns that just one door supervisor would not be effective to do the intended job. The requirement for searching would be more difficult with a single door supervisor and there were potential issues searching males and females. If something was to happen inside or a break was taken there was a risk the door would be unsupervised if only one supervisor was employed. It was appreciated there was a cost implication, but proportionality of the condition had been considered and two door supervisors would be ideal and what was recommended.

 

3.    Ms Dring responded to questions as follows:

a.  Councillor Levy asked about the timescales relating to the DPS application, PC Marsh confirmed that Police had received the application but all checks had not yet been completed to give approval to Mrs Glasgow’s appointment but she was effectively DPS in the interim until the application was determined.

b.  In response to Councillor Levy’s queries regarding the proposed operating hours, it was advised that the proposals were intended to bring back the hours to those of a traditional pub with traditional hours, as it once was.

 

4.    The statement of Mr Stephen Thomas, solicitor, on behalf of Mrs Ishil Bursuk (Premises Licence Holder), including the following points:

a.  He was gladdened by the honest approach of Mrs Bursuk, and by the help that Mrs Glasgow had given. He highlighted the letter from Mrs Bursuk in the supplementary agenda pack. She had been a licensee in Enfield for 21 years and had served the borough well and had received an accolade from Enfield In Bloom: so it was sad to have come to this point.

b.  There was a need to look at the cause of the problems and make a proportionate response. No-one was seeking to close this premises. It was accepted by Mrs Bursuk that she did not handle matters as she should have in August, and that she should no longer be the DPS.

c.  Mrs Glasgow had become the DPS with immediate effect and within 14 days, providing there was no Police objection, she would be confirmed in that position. That was why there was agreement to an additional condition to ensure there was no route back for Mrs Bursuk as DPS.

d.  Parties also agreed that a seven day licence suspension was practical, and understood the need to comply with conditions, and that a suspension would be extended if they were not in compliance.

e.  The cause of problems had only happened in recent times. There was a concern that gangs had started to infiltrate the premises and cause issues in an otherwise well-run pub. One problem had been the construction of shisha huts outdoors, initially built as smoking shelters, which became run independently and began to attract the wrong type of people.

f.  On the arrival of Mrs Glasgow on Monday, she had immediately closed the pub garden so the outdoor area could no longer be used. The decision had been taken that it would remain closed until the end of February 2016: this could be added as a condition. A quote had been obtained for removal of the huts. The outdoor area would revert to a traditional beer garden, with smoking being permitted at the front of the pub under a canopy, in full public view. A seven day licence suspension would also assist with removing the undesirable elements who had been using the premises.

g.  The comments of the Police in respect of the timing of some criminal incidents were accepted. His client had insisted agreement to a substantial reduction in hours. This was a major financial decision and would have a punitive effect on the business. It would be a major signal that the premises was going to operate in a completely different style.

h.  Use of polycarbonate drinking vessels was accepted, but the business would wish to serve bottles of wine. That would seem appropriate and it would hamper the business otherwise.

i.  The criticism had to be accepted that there has been poor management. The management would now be changed, with Mrs Glasgow becoming DPS and Mrs Wilson as a new Kitchen Manager. Mrs Glasgow’s vision was that the business would be taken forward as a food-based operation. Mrs Wilson was qualified in catering and hospitality, health and safety and hygiene. She used to work with Mrs Glasgow and was a team leader: she was ideally suited to take on board some of the training issues. A draft training manual had been prepared to take the operation forward.

j.  A seven day period of closure would permit refurbishment, with the installation of new CCTV and removal of the outdoor huts, and give the opportunity to begin marketing the food business, including coffee mornings and afternoon tea, and Christmas meals in December. A vegetarian section would also be added to the menu. It was planned to hold local ‘mover and shaker’ evenings to offer a taster of food on offer. Tablecloths and menus would give an atmosphere of a pub/restaurant: this was what the premises wished to become, and to be a benefit to Enfield.

k.  The request by the Police for two SIA accredited door staff, in proposed Condition 19, was problematic in terms of effect on the business. The pub was currently running at a £3,500 loss per month and would be subject to costs of removing the outdoor huts and of installing new CCTV, and Mrs Bursuk had little left in reserves. A seven day suspension would also mean a loss of one week’s trade, and reduction in hours would be a permanent loss of trading time every night. The quote for two door supervisors was £4,000 per month. Such a cost would leave the business without any money by the end of the year as it moved into the quiet month of January. It would be difficult to make a success of the business on that basis. Risk assessments could suggest an appropriate level of door supervision and searching. The business wished to develop family and local community trade and feared that customers may be put off by a high level of door supervision.

l. It was accepted that Mrs Bursuk or member of her family should not take any management or supervisory role. It would play to Mrs Bursuk’s strengths which were people skills and mean she would not need to worry about running the premises. Mrs Glasgow would be in day to day control. The preparation of the training manual showed the serious intent to run the business correctly with proper systems in place.

 

5.    Mr Thomas responded to questions as follows:

a. Members commented that the major consideration was promotion of the licensing objectives. Councillor Levy raised that previous licence breaches could have potentially resulted in a fine larger than the financial costs now being described. In response, Mr Thomas acknowledged members’ views, but that any action should be proportionate and appropriate. The financial loss involved in seven days’ closure and reduced hours would be a substantial penalty. When PC Marsh had visited the premises he had stated that he did not want to see the pub closed, and that he would wish to see introduction of one door supervisor. The main problem related to the huts, and these were going to be removed and the garden closed. He asked that the very positive steps proposed were taken on board, and that the aim should be to see a viable pub/restaurant here.

b.  In response to the Chair’s query, it was confirmed that the huts were run under a rental arrangement to an individual, though the rent had not been paid. A condition in respect of removal of the huts within seven days would be acceptable.

c.  Ms Dring raised that Police would be happy to see the huts voluntarily removed, but did not consider the huts as the only source of problems, and that the incident on 6/8/15 took place inside the pub. The plans for the premises were welcomed, but were aspirational with no guarantee they would come to pass which affected the weight to be given to them. It was also considered appropriate to introduce two door supervisors every night, noting that the incident on 6/8/15 happened on a Thursday not a weekend. There was a need for actions to be proportionate bearing in mind the seriousness of problems at the premises.

d.  The Chair asked if the premises would be showing sports on TV. It was advised that the subscription to Sky had been stopped a few years ago due to the high cost. They did have live TV. In response to the Chair’s further points that sports coverage was advertised on the outside of the pub, it was re-confirmed that they did not now show it and that they used to but it was too costly.

e.  Councillor Levy asked if Enterprise Inns PLC which owned the pub had made a formal representation or wished to comment. It was confirmed that a letter had been received from the company and that Mr Lamb, a regional manager from the company was present at this hearing. Mr Lamb advised that the company was not a brewery and the majority of premises were on a leased basis. The company was there to support where it could with certain elements, but relied on publicans to inform them of what happened within a business. If there was a breach of the lease or of licensing conditions the company would potentially take action. Limitations on a licence may affect re-letting as a viable business. The company was made aware of the incident on 6/8/15 by PC Marsh and not by the Premises Licence Holder, and had tried to offer support. The company were aware of the outdoor huts, but had not considered them an issue if they were managed properly.

 

6.    The closing statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer:

a.  Having heard all of the representations, the sub-committee must take steps considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives further to the measures agreed by all parties.

b.  Members’ attention was drawn to relevant law and guidance, with emphasis on Home Office guidance at section 11.20, and the Council’s Licensing Policy section 10.3.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1.         In accordance with the principles of Section 100(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

The Panel retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

2.      The Chair made the following statement:

 

We have listened to the arguments put forward by the Police and the legal representative for the Premises Licence Holder. We have also considered our Licensing policy and the Licensing objectives in the Licensing Act. We were pleased to see that there was agreement reached between the Police and Premises Licence Holder about some modifications to the licence. We have therefore concluded that it is appropriate for the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder to reduce the hours of licensable activities, remove late night refreshment from the licence, amend and add conditions and suspend the licence for a minimum of seven days and until the conditions are met and checked as being satisfactory.

 

The Police advised that they were no longer seeking removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) as an application had been submitted to vary the DPS since the review application was made. The DPS application had not yet been determined, so condition 30 was added to promote the licensing objectives should the DPS application be withdrawn or not granted. The sub-committee were persuaded by the argument put forward by the Police that two SIA door staff were needed rather than one so as to be effective for searching males and females and to ensure that the door remained supervised should another SIA registered staff be needed for any incidents within the premises. It was appreciated that there was a cost implication to the Premises Licence Holder, but this was weighed up against the risk to public safety and crime and disorder and determined that the condition was proportionate. The suspension is the minimum considered necessary in order to put the modifications to the licence in place and to be checked as satisfactory by the police or licensing authority.

 

3.      The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved that it considered it appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to suspend the licence for a period of not less than seven days AND until the conditions have been implemented and checked by the Police or Licensing Authority, and to also exclude a licensable activity from the licence and modify the conditions of the licence in accordance with revised Annex 06 to the report: Conditions 1 to 18, and Conditions 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 29, which are not disputed remain the same; and amend conditions and add additional conditions as follows:

 

a)    Condition 19 (amended) to require a minimum of two door supervisory staff daily from the hours of 20:00 until 30 minutes after close of the premises.

 

b)    Condition 21 (amended) - All drinking vessels to be replaced with polycarbonate drinking vessels and these to be used at all times. Customers are not to be supplied with glass bottles or drinking vessels with the exception of bottles of wine.

 

c)    Condition 26 (amended) - All training relating to the sale of alcohol, drugs awareness, and the times and conditions of the premises licence shall be documented and records kept on the premises. These records shall be made available to the Police and/or Licensing Authority upon request and shall be left for at least one year.

 

d)    Condition 30 (new) - Neither Mrs Ishil Bursuk, nor any member of her immediate family shall be entitled to occupy the role of Designated Premises Supervisor and shall not be involved in the day to day running of the licensable activities at the premises.

 

e)    Condition 31 (new) – To demolish the huts used for shisha in the rear garden within seven days.

 

f)     As agreed between the Police and Premises Licence Holder, the hours of the licensable activities shall be reduced for the supply of alcohol 10:00 to 23:00 daily, Films 10:00 to 23:00 daily, Indoor sporting events 12:00 to 23:00 daily, opening hours 10:00 to 23:00 daily, live music 12:00 to 23:00 daily and recorded music 10:00 to 23:00 daily and removal of late night refreshment from the licence.