Agenda item

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 premises are regarded as a centre of culture and creativity and has never been regarded as associated with crime or violence. He suggested that the condition about the employment of 2 door staff was “overkill”, and urged the Sub-Committee to show flexibility in relation to it.

Ms Milner said that the management of Wunder Bar could only deal with problems of which they were aware. The Police had never raised any concerns about Class A drugs at the premises, but only cannabis. Over 100 representations had been made in support of the premises, and she urged to Sub-Committee to have regard to these.

Mr Bull said that 6 CCTV cameras had been purchased, and that it was planned to raise this to 9. Further discussions would take place with the Police about their location, and he would ensure that every area of the premises was covered. Recording would commence one hour before the premises opened and cease one hour after they closed. He was also considering installing microphones to the external cameras. The requirement for 2 security staff every day at a total cost of £571+VAT was, he said, placing an undue financial burden on the business, and he urged the Sub-Committee to reduce this requirement, at least for Thursday and Sunday evenings, when the clientele mostly comprised regulars from the locality. There was no admission charge for any of the events held at the premises, and Ms Milner and he had made no money from the premises for years. In reply to questions from Members Mr Bull and Ms Milner stated:

• he was confident that there would be no problems if the requirement for security staff was reduced; Thursday and Sundays were always quiet, and in future the whole premises would be monitored by CCTV; the premises were small and could be thoroughly inspected in a relatively short time

• security cameras had been installed as the Police and requested and customers would in future be aware that they were being monitored; staff knew that the premises could close if there were any future issues with drugs and would be alert

• a new ethos of zero tolerance to drugs had been introduced at the premises

The parties were invited to sum up. Ms Milner said that she and Mr Bull did not make money out of the premises and the local community respected them for that. She had been amazed by the volume of support for the Wunder Bar. She urged the Sub-Committee not to close it.

Mr Purchase said that the management of Wunder Bar had fully embraced the interim steps that had been imposed. It was possible that the premises had been contaminated by activities which originated in the Stones Cross.

Following an adjournment it was RESOLVED to add conditions to the premises licence as detailed below.

Reasons

Members have today determined an application from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary to review a premises licence at Wunder Bar, Midsomer Norton. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Licensing Policy, and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and that they must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on information before them. 

In reaching a decision Members took account of all the relevant oral and written representations, and balanced the competing interests of the applicant and premises licence holder.

The application was made on the basis of concerns that serious crime was being carried on at the premises, namely drug use and dealing of class A, B and C drugs. Members heard that an operation carried out between October 2013 and April 2014 produced evidence of drugs being supplied to covert police officers on 9 occasions within the premises and 13 occasions in the immediate vicinity. The drugs supplied were cocaine, MDMA, MDMC and ketamine. The police further stated that on one occasion a patron was seen to snort white powder when a member of staff walked passed and on another a drug deal taking place in view of door staff. Further, on 17 January 2014, during a licensing visit, there was a strong smell of cannabis being smoked in the garden and following searches a young male was issued with a fixed penalty notice for possession of cannabis. Members heard that Police officers spoke to Lucy Milner advising her to take better control of the premises and garden and during a follow-up visit no offences were seen being committed. As a result of the police operation Members heard 7 people had been arrested on suspicion of supplying drugs.

The premises management stated they were shocked by the allegations and felt revocation was not the answer. They also felt a suspension was not the answer, particularly as they are a small business looking to ensure this does not occur again and those involved have been arrested. The management also stated that most of the incidents related to a garden area, which was a blind spot and the incidents occurred unknown to them. It was suggested that suspension will lead to more problems elsewhere in the town but that if the premises remained open with conditions matters could be controlled and more closely monitored.

In reaching their decision Members noted the police suggested conditions, if it were considered inappropriate to revoke the licence. Members also noted the content and number of positive representations the premises had received. Having listened carefully to all the representations, and in all the circumstances, Members find it is not appropriate to revoke the licence but rather consider it appropriate to modify the conditions licence as follows:-

1.  CCTV shall be installed to the satisfaction of the police and maintained in good working order. All cameras shall record continuously during trading hours and for one hour afterwards. The time and date shall be displayed on the recordings. Recordings shall be maintained for a period of 31 days and made available to the police or licensing authority for evidential purposes on request. If the CCTV equipment fails, the police and licensing authority must be informed as soon as possible and immediate steps shall be taken to effect a repair. A notice shall be displayed at the entrance to the premises advising that CCTV is in operation.

2.  There shall be 2 SIA registered door supervisors on duty, from opening time until closing time, when the premises are open to the public and 2 other members of staff shall be on duty during these times 1 of whom shall be female. 

3.  Checks will be made of the male and female toilets on the premises every 15 minutes by door supervisors or other members of staff while the premises are open, a written record of such checks will be maintained at the premises and will contain the name of person carrying out such checks. This record will be available to the police and licensing authority on request.

4.  A register will be kept on the premises showing the full name, full SIA badge number, time on duty and time off duty of each door supervisor. The register will be retained for 12 months and made immediately available for inspection to the police or licensing authority.

5.  An incident book shall be maintained at the premises with all incidents of crime and disorder and any ejections by door supervisors shall be recorded. The incident book shall be completed on a daily basis regardless of whether any incidents have taken place. The incident book shall be retained on completion for 12 months and shall be made available to the police and licensing authority.

6.  A personal licence holder shall be on the premises during all opening hours.

7.  All staff will be regularly trained in matters concerning illegal drug use and sale of alcohol and records kept of such training. The records will be made available to the police or licensing authority on request.

8.  All persons entering the premises will be searched for drugs, weapons or other illegal items on entry or re-entry. 

Delegated authority to modify and issue the licence