Agenda item

To consider and determine an Application by Wiltshire Police for a Review of the Premises Licence in respect of New Inn, 10-16 High Street, Amesbury, Wiltshire, SP4 7DL.

 

 

Review Application by Wiltshire Police in respect of the New Inn, 10-16 High Street, Amesbury, Wiltshire SP4 7DL

 

Licensing Officer’s Submission

 

The Sub Committee gave consideration to a report and appendices (published online) in which determination was sought for an application for a Review, presented by Carla Adkins (Public Protection Officer – Licensing) for which 12 relevant representations had been received.  The application was for the following licensable activities:

 

It was noted by the Sub Committee that there were 3 options available to them:

 

i)                    To modify theconditions ofthe licence.

ii)                   To exclude alicensable activityfrom thescope ofthe licence.

iii)                 To suspend thelicence fora periodnot exceedingthree months.

iv)                 To revoke thelicence.

v)                  To determine thatno stepsare necessary.

 

The following parties attended the hearing and took part in it:

 

On behalf of the Applicant (Wiltshire Police)

·         Alistair Day – Police Licensing Officer

·         Inspector Tina Osborn

·         Sergeant Steve Jolly

 

Summary of the Applicant’s submission:

 

• Premises License has now been transferred to Mr Ewer
• If the Sub Committee is happy with the evidence submitted so far, the Applicant would support an adjusted licence conditions.
• Premises is a late-night venue operating in a small-town centre with commercial and residential properties close by.  The premises is accessed by one access point at front and a courtyard at the rear.
• Behind the premises is a fixed building which forms part of premises licence called the Stables which is used for music.
• There is a smaller fixed building called the Jager Bar which is not licensed.
• There is access to the carpark and then back on to the high street.

 

• The Applicant set out the current licensing times includes outdoor films and indoor sporting events. The last 3 months the applicant has worked with the premises to address local concerns.
• The applicant supports the licensee to promote the licensing objectives.
• Accepts there are concerns regarding over-intoxication, assaults, urinating & vomiting, drug activity and screaming and fighting.
• The Police now patrol the Amesbury Town centre.
• There is a negative impact on residents and
• The Police are working with licensed premises, taxi services and military to reduce the negative impact on residents.
• The Police offer encouragement and education on how to provide a safe environment inside and out.
• All other premises in centre of Amesbury have been offered advice and all have accepted the advice except the New Inn.
• Licensing Objectives are regularly breached.
• The Police have evidence of incidents occurring inside and out of the premises & can provide this for the Sub Committee
• Changes proposed by the Applicant:

 

1. For alcohol sales to cease at 2200 and the premises to close at 2300
2. The CCTV is not part of current licence – the Applicant would ask that this is installed and all staff trained in use.
3. Management of noise levels in the Stable Room – opening hours to be brought back to 2300
4. The DPS must attend the local Pubwatch scheme for as long as that scheme exists.
5. The CCTV must cover all areas of the premises
6. Require at least 4 door staff to be present and increased to 6 for regulated entertainment functions
7. For the premises to employ a suitable acoustician to advise on the noise levels in the Stables
8. A Noise management plan to be produced and submitted
9. A management plan to deal with Live, unamplified and acoustic music –
10.  For a written observation to be made by a member of staff with a noise limiter device
11. Noise limiter device to be placed in the main Stables –
12. A noise limiter device to be fitted in the premises for all regulated entertainment.

 

 

Questions from the Committee:

 

·         How would the conditions prevent the return of the previous clientele?

Answer: A main factor to previous behaviour was that clientele were allowed to get over intoxicated.

·         Would you say that the worse time for increased anti-social behaviour appeared to be between 24:00 – 03:00?

Answer: Yes, the premises closes at 02:00 at the weekend, we have engaged with all other premises in the town centre and the DPS and owner have worked hard to manage another premises well.

·         Only two days ago the license was transferred to another person, the building owner.

Answer: Yes, The licensee is the building owner and does not intend to have a hand in running it, he will lease it out.

·         You are asking us not to revoke the license but to apply more conditions. The Police were keen to see a new Manager for the premises, the present license in its current form would allow a return of what occurred.

Answer: They do not feel there is a need to revoke the license.

·         The current DPS was the partner of Mr Muirhead and one bar staff was his sister, so they were still present in the running of the premises.

Answer: The Police need to look into this today  they are convinced that it is an oversight. The DPS will surrender their DPS status.

·         The opening times of the other premises in the area were noted. The George Hotel was able to open until 01:00, but chose to close earlier, Wetherspoons closed at 21:00 but was able to stay open till 01:00.

It was noted that the other 3 premises were well managed.

·         What level of support was there from the Military Police, given the mix of civilian and military clientele?

Answer: The Police confirmed there had been a massive increase over the last 6 months. The Military Police had done a fantastic job engaging with the Police.  Any Military personnel involved in an incident in the town will have the involvement of the Military Police, who are able to carry out random drugs and as a result, 5 or 6 soldiers had been dismissed from the service.

 

The Sub-Committee confirmed that they did not feel it was necessary to view the Police bodycam footage which was available, and would consider the case based on the written and verbal evidence provided in the Agenda pack and at the meeting.

 

Responsible Authorities

·         Mrs Linda Holland, Licensing Manager, Wiltshire Council Licensing Authority

·         Mrs Vicky Brown, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Wiltshire
Council Environmental Protection and Control

 

Licensing Authority submission:

 

·         There had been poor management and behaviours of customers at the premises.

·         Aware there had now been a change of licensee and felt it was now more appropriate to apply additional conditions to the existing license to manage the issues which had occurred under the previous manager.

·         The License holder had not sought to attend the hearing or address the issues that had been present.

·         There had been a mismanagement of the premises, however felt that the premises could move forward if managed robustly by a new License holder.

·         Appropriate hours of operation could be advised by Police

·         Summary of additional conditions suggested:

1.    Staff training on Licensing Act 2007 and Best Practice, to be carried out on induction and to be ongoing. Records of training kept and maintained (available upon request to Police & Responsible Authorities).

2.    Written Management structure.

3.    Challenge 25 Policy in operation, including staff training, record keeping of training and scheme posters displayed.

4.    DPS or Licence Holder present during key trading times and any other periods that an event should take place (impacting on attendance).

5.    Operation of an Incident/Refusals book (specification provided in full), recording prescribed details (available upon request to Police & Responsible Authorities).

6.    Fully maintained CCTV installed and operational, covering all entrances, trading areas and exits, with images stored for a minimum of 31 days (available upon request to Police & Responsible Authorities).

7.    Premises to belong to, attend and comply with the terms and practices of the local Pub Watch Scheme.

·         Needed confidence that the next Licence holder would be reliable.

·         Politely suggest additional conditions be applied and that there was a review of the operating hours, to enable us to work with the new License holder to move this premises forward.

·         These changes could be applied for a period of time to enable these measures to take effect.

·         The illegality of the drugs associated with this premises would need to change. They would need a period to address the issues with the associated customers.

 

Questions by the Sub-Committee:

 

The new License Holder had not offered any mitigations, the additional conditions submitted were from Wiltshire Council’s Best Practice model. Had there been any information from the new Licence Holder since he took over two days ago, to suggest how he would manage the premises?

 

Answer: No, and the previous DPS remained in place at the Premises.

 

Environmental Health Submission:

 

• Support the Police in their Review of this license. 
• There had been a high level of involvement from the Environmental Health team over the last 4 years. The majority of the issues were noise complaints.
• They have  concerns around noise and public nuisance.
• Music was the main factor of the noise associated with the New Inn, however there were other noise complaints, aside from that associated with music.
• They  were involved prior to 2018 with noise complaints from third parties in Amesbury.
• Some complaints over the last 4 years related to festival events outside the premises.
• At times it appeared the management seemed to work, there were periods where there were less complaints, at other times there were a higher level of complaints.
• In spring 2020 during a covid lockdown, in July 2020, there was an application for a TEN for a music festival, which stated that they wanted to play music at 104dbs, which is extremely loud. They were surprised that it had been included in the application considering the advice previously provided to the licence holder over the years.
• The weekend prior to the festival the premises played live music, colleagues witnessed quite loud music during covid restrictions. It was clear that advice was not being followed and had to forward that on to the Covid Compliance officer.
• There were periods that the noise coming from the premises was recorded at such a level that was able to be considered as a statutory noise disturbance. 
• The ‘Stables’ was a building at the rear of the premises treated acoustically where a noise limiter was in place. On visiting the residents near the premises, music from the Stables could be heard. Upon checking the Stables, they  found the doors to be wide open and the music coming out was very loud.
• In August 2021 there were plans to apply for a variation to the hours for use of the Stables area. They were advised a noise limiter would be needed and was told one was installed, however on inspection they had moved the one from the main pub into the Stables. Environmental Health are not satisfied with the location of installation of noise limiter.  This was indicative of the way the noise management has been approached at the premises.
• They  have  received regular complaints from local residents.
• They support the Police application.
• To promote a more consistent approach in the future the inclusion of conditions and removal of the Live Music Act on the licence.
• Outside area limited to background music only before 23:00
• Outside drinking area not before 23:30
• DPS – Management of  access of visitors on the premises.
• All windows and doors to be closed by 23:00
• Alternative wording for the noise limiter was suggested. 
• Terminal hour for Regulated entertainment to be brought back to midnight.
• If the Stables continue to have regulated entertainment – a Noise Consultant should be employed and a  report produced
• A Noise management plan to be submitted to Environmental Health officers for approval

 

Questions:

 

·         There had been regular involvement by Environmental Health with the premises over last 4 years, how did that compare with other venues?

Answer: There were other premises where involvement was required, however, last summer 4 late night visits were required here, and there was ongoing continued need.

·         Did you believe that if conditions were added that they would be adhered to and the premises would become trouble free?

Answer: If conditions adhered to, then yes it could be managed correctly

 

·         Had there been any proactivity in your view?

Answer: At times there had been weeks or a month where there had been positive reports, however this was short term and the situation would decline. There was inconsistency.

 

·         Did the premises structure and location lend itself to what was required to hold  events?

Answer: More limited hours for music and regulated entertainment and a more proactive effort in getting professional advice to make the right decisionsrather than relying on the Licensing Authority to guide them potentially yes. . The Stables had been professionally sound proofed. They have been operating in the main pub with karaoke nights for a very long time, providing the noise limiter was in place it was achievable. The Stables would need to be looked at, in terms of the type of insulation required before music could be played without negative affect.

 

Relevant Representations

·         Rep 1 - local resident in objection to the application

·         Rep 2 - local resident in objection to the application

·         Rep 3 – Representative of Beechwood Court in objection to the application

 

Those that had made Relevant Representations submissions:

 

 

Rep 1:

• Target area for their customers was single males from the nearby army camps.
• The premises had long operating hours until 02:00 or 03:00 hrs.
• Residents who lived closest were mainly elderly
• On Friday and Saturday evenings there was regular chaos from the pub.
• After closing, it regularly took a long time to clear the streets
• Only some taxis would agree to take them back to the  Base.
• They have  videos and photos available to view
• During an incident in October there were 7 Police cars and 3 military cars
• Physical damage to property occurs regularly
• It is damaging to the local tourist industry and the George hotel suffers as it has to issue rebates to guests after problems and Trip Advisor shows problems were still current.
• The License should be modified to have the same hours as other town establishments.
• Improved management and other measures are not sustainable and do not work long term.

 

 

Rep 2:

• Some residents sorry they have not had their letters accepted or they are unable to attend today due to health issues.
• It is a treat to be able to use our living room and watch the TV, we have had our weekends ruined for several years from noise coming from New Inn
• Had revellers prancing from the New Inn until 02:00 – 03:00 hrs.
• They are regularly woken up and then find it difficult to get back to sleep
• They have regularly seen young men leaving the New Inn, then vomiting, urinating and swearing loudly in the streets.
• These acts  are frightening for us and our grandchildren when staying with us.

 

Rep 3:

• I am representing the owners of Beechwood Court as they are unable to attend.
• The Residents are unhappy about being identified due to intimidation
• 3 of 5 residents moved out due to loud music, disturbance and antisocial behaviour in the High Street, noting that there had been issues of swearing, vomiting and even finding a used condom.
• There are concerns raised about the noise in the passageway
• Trading had only recently started up again, so they expect more complaints
• Not happy about the situation but put up with it as quality properties were hard to find.

 

Questions:

 

·         Had the New Inn provided a telephone number to residents, to call if there were issues?

Answer: They were given a  number and an email, both were ignored and the phone put down when they realised who I was.

 

 

Summaries:

 

Rep 1:

 

The Police say the other establishments were well managed, but there had been incidents.

 

 

The Sub-Committee retired to deliberate at 12.15hrs and reconvened at 13:45hrs.

 

Decision

 

The Senior Solicitor confirmed she gave relevant legal advice to the Sub-Committee on the Licensing Objectives and evidence

 

The Southern Area Licensing Sub-Committee (Sub-Committee) resolved to REVOKE the Premises License LN/000043211in respect of the New Inn 10 – 16 High Street, Amesbury, Wiltshire, SP4 7DL.

 

Reasons for the Decision:

 

Reasons for the Decision:
The Sub-Committee determined that the Licence Holder had failed to comply with its
obligations in respect of the following licensing objectives; -

i.              The Prevention of Crime and Disorder

ii.            Public Safety

iii.           The Prevention of Public Nuisance

 

Whilst the Sub-Committee acknowledges the Premises Licence was transferred to the current Licence Holder on 24 January 2022, the Sub-Committee did not hear from the new Licence Holder about his intentions on addressing the issues of crime and disorder, public safety and prevention of public nuisance which had caused the Police to seek a review of the Premises Licence.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from;

1. The Police as the Review Applicant regarding significant levels of crime and
disorder both inside and outside of the premises and during and after opening
hours, caused by Patrons of the premises and the failure of the previous Licence Holder to properly engage with the Police regarding the crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee did not consider it necessary to view the video evidence offered by the Police and it was noted from the Police that the current Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) remains in place.

2. The Licensing Authority regarding the failure to promote the licensing objectives through the mis-management of the premises; anti-social behaviour by the patrons of the premises taking place during opening hours and after closing time, which was not appropriately managed by the previous licence holder and the high level of complaints received about both anti-social behaviour and noise of patrons attending the premises.

3. The Environmental Health Officer regarding the high levels of noise from music including music festivals taking place at the premises, raised voices of patrons attending the premises and the failure by the previous licence holder to manage the noise levels. No noise management plan has been submitted to
Environmental Health by the current Licence Holder.

4. Three residents living nearby to the premises who had made representations
regarding the adverse effect of the noise and general anti-social behaviour taking place both during the evenings and early hours of the morning after the premises had closed.  The Sub-Committee was not presented with oral evidence or information from the current Licence Holder on how they intended to manage the premises in the future. The current Licence Holder was informed of the date, time and location of the review hearing and their right to attend and be represented.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took account of and considered all of the documentary and oral evidence from the Wiltshire Police, the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health and the and the ten relevant representations received of which three also gave oral evidence to the Sub- Committee.
Conclusions

In view of the evidence heard, the Sub-Committee concluded that they could have no confidence in the ability of the current Licence Holder to adequately address the failings of the previous licence holder to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance, given the previous history of the management of the premises. The Sub-Committee also concluded that the imposition of additional licence conditions, or the temporary suspension of the Licence would not result in the required changes and improvements necessary to promote the licensing objectives and that revocation of the licence was the only practical option and was one which was both proportionate and necessary to meet the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered that in the circumstances a fresh licence application was the best way to appropriately address all the issues concerning the serious antisocial behaviour, public nuisance and public safety and would give a new applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that they could positively and proactively promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee therefore concluded, on the basis of the evidence presented, that revocation of the licence that the only option available to it and that such revocation was reasonable, proportionate and necessary to promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee also considered the relevant provisions of the
Licensing Act 2003 (in particular Sections 4,18,51 and 52); the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, the four Licensing Objectives; the Revised Guidance 2018 issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing Policy of Wiltshire Council.

Effective date of Decision
The parties were informed that this decision will not take effect until the end of the period within which an appeal can be made or, if such an appeal is made, until that appeal has been finally determined.

Right to Appeal
The parties were informed that the Premises Licence Holder, the party that applied for the review and any Responsible Authority or Interested Parties who have made representations may appeal the decision made by the Licensing Sub-Committee to the Magistrates Court. The appeal must be lodged with the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the notification of the decision. The decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee does not take effect until the end of the period for appealing against that decision. In the event of an appeal being lodged, the decision made by the Licensing Sub-Committee does not take effect until any appeal is heard and finally determined.