Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

There were none.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

These were approved as a true record and signed by the Chair.

The approval of the minutes for the meeting of 29^th April at meeting was deferred to the next meeting.

The Chair will, if required, explain the review procedure.

The Chair explained the procedure to be followed for the next two items of business.

Applicant for Review: The Chief Officer of Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Martin Purchase (Police Licensing Officer), Superintendent Richard Cadden, Inspector Shirley Eden,  Constable Natalie George

Licence Holder Chings Company Limited, represented by Johnathon Hibbard, also known as Yotjai Potjakapong (the name given on premises licence and by which he appeared at the Interim Steps meeting on 23 April 2014) and Potjakapong Singththony (Director and Designated Premises Supervisor) and Matthew Graham (Partner, Mowbray City Advocates)

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the application and invited the Sub-Committee to determine it.

The case for the Applicant for Review was opened by Mr Purchase. He submitted that the report before the Sub-Committee demonstrated a horrifying catalogue of drug dealing and criminality, and that other premises in Midsomer Norton had been contaminated by the illegal activities taking place in the Stones Cross Hotel. The Police had conducted an undercover operation (‘Operation Henotic’) over a long period based on information provided by the local community. The premises had been well-known among local residents as a centre of drug dealing and use. Inspector Eden said that a particular concern had been the impact on young people, who were in the habit of migrating in the course of an evening from one licensed premises to another in an extended pub crawl, and were drawn to the town from far around by the skate park. The town had a history of alcohol- and drug-related crime and disorder. After the formation of the alcohol partnership October 2012 there had been a decline in violent crime, but there had still been a significant amount of drug-related crime, which had posed a risk for vulnerable members of the community. The information which had led to the police operation had come from members of the community; her team had taken a considerable number of witness statements. It was worth noting that all those who had given statements had wished to remain anonymous. Officers who had attended the premises on 14 November 2013 had been subjected to an unacceptable level of threatening behaviour. During the operation 42 supplies of drugs were witnessed on the premises. It was reasonable to assume that a similar level of supply had been taking place regularly. In response to questions from Members she stated:

• Operation Henotic was the biggest operation of its kind that had ever taken place in the area

• the Stones Cross Hotel was well-known as a centre of drugs supply among local residents, who wondered why nothing was done about it

• the Manager, Mr Ching, had been warned about suspected drug dealing on 11 December 2013

The Chair noted that the Police application was seeking the revocation of the premises licence, and asked Mr Purchase why this would be a proportionate response to the situation. He replied that there was a deep-rooted culture at the premises, which impacted severely on the community. Little had been done by the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) to remedy this situation. That is why the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Applicant for Review: the Chief Officer of Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Martin Purchase (Police Licensing Officer), Superintendent Richard Cadden, Inspector Shirley Eden, Constable Natalie George

Licence Holders: James Bull (Designated Premises Supervisor) and Lucy Milner

Other Persons: Sydney Bull and Daniel Flitcroft

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the application and invited the Sub-Committee to determine it.

Mr Purchase opened the case for the Police. He said that it was very disappointing that the sale and use of drugs had occurred at the premises. The management and staff had been very lax, and the management appeared on occasion to have turned a blind eye to what was going on. However, they had responded positively since the meeting on 23 April and had faithfully implemented the interim steps imposed. Inspector Eden said that the Police had noted the level of support for the premises in the community, but the considerable support from the community for the actions taken by the Police should also be noted. In response to questions from Members she stated:

• it had not been possible to identify any underage drinkers on the premises during visits following the two reports from Street Marshalls about the premises “overflowing with underage drinkers”

• she was satisfied that a continuance of the interim steps would be sufficient to promote the licensing objectives

• the premises might be “safe” as far as physical violence and other crime was concerned, but on occasion they had not been in relation to the threat of drugs; it might be that the drugs problem had migrated from the Stones Cross, but if so this had occurred because of the naivety of the management of the Wunder Bar

• the Police had been unaware of any problems with drugs at the premises until Operation Henotic

• the Police had not been called to the premises since the interim steps had been imposed

Mr Bull asked why it was necessary for the premises to employ two security staff every night. There were very few patrons on Thursday and Sunday evenings and these were all regulars from the locality. Mr Purchase replied that this was because a single security person would not be able to cope on their own, because of the need to check toilets etc. The condition about security staff was imposed specifically to address the issue of drugs.

Mr Sydney Bull made a statement on behalf of the premises. He said that he was the nephew of the DPS and a regular customer of the Wunder Bar. He said that the premises played a vital role in the cultural life of the community and that it would tragic if it were closed, particularly at a time when so many other licensed premises were closing

Mr Daniel Flitcroft made a statement on behalf of the premises. He said that he had first attended the premises 15 years ago. More than 100 musicians who had been clients of his music studio had come to him via the Wunder Bar. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.