Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedure was noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations.

To hear and determine an application for the review of a premises licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

·         PC John McGann – applicant for the review

·         Crispin Mallet – licence holder

·         Robin Beynon – supporting witness to the licence holder

·         Simon Ridall – supporting witness to the licence holder

·         Claire Mayer – supporting witness to the licence holder

·         Councillor Gemma Stockley – supporting witness to the licence holder

·         Phil Edney – supporting witness to the licence holder

PC McGann introduced the police’s application for this licence review.  He produced an additional statement, which was tabled with Mr Mallet’s permission, that related to allegations of drugs use on the premises.  He said that the police had recently attempted to work with Mr Mallet to address issues being experienced by neighbours of the pub, although it was reported that Mr Mallet had been uncooperative to the police’s requests for closed circuit television (CCTV).  PC McGann summarised the incidents set out in the supporting documentation for the review, which included allegations of Mr Mallet being intoxicated on a number of occasions.

Following questions to PC McGann, the meeting was advised that:

·         The police felt Mr Mallet’s ability to manage the premises was often impaired by him being inebriated.

·         Mr Mallet often was uncooperative with police when they perceived him to be drunk.

·         The drug allegation would be investigated by the Criminal Investigations Department.

Mr Mallet was invited to make his representations and began by saying that he was now employing a SIA certified door supervisor for later in the evening on Friday and Saturday nights and was happy to accept this as a condition on the licence.  He said that he had been ill from around January 2010 for several months, during which time his wife had been responsible for the management of the premises.  He described how the condition and treatment he was suffering from affected his ability to consume alcohol, so he therefore could not have been intoxicated on the occasions the police stated.  He also gave the committee details of a lifelong condition he was suffering from, which often affected his concentration and balance, giving him the appearance of being drunk.

Mr Mallet refuted the claim that there was drug use on the premises and said that this was the first such claim he had been made aware of.  It was stated that none of the reports tabled by the police had resulted in any charges being brought.  He described the events of the various incidents described by the police:

·         One had taken place halfway between his premises and another local pub.  This incident involved a local nuisance who followed guests from one pub to The Charlie Butler, with the intent of aggravating those he was following.

·         Another involved patrons of the Charlie Butler that had vacated the premises several hours earlier who, having probably continued consuming alcohol elsewhere, became involved in an altercation with a weapon.

·         A further incident was a family feud which had been misrepresented by the police and council’s technical officer; most of those involved were from the same family who were trying to separate the two main perpetrators.

·         The police were called twice in one evening by Mr Mallet himself, as his wife and daughter were being harassed by a man who was refusing to leave The Charlie Butler.

PC McGann responded and said that the police had never received any requests for charges to be pressed.

Following questions from the sub-committee to Mr Mallet, the meeting was advised that:

·         Mr Mallet’s wife was best described as a stern woman, who was very capable of managing a pub.

·         Any patrons Mr Mallet saw outside after 23:00 were immediately asked to return inside.

·         None of the incidents had taken place inside the premises, or anywhere that the police’s requested cameras would have recorded.

·         Mr Mallet was only entitled to 24 hours notice by the owner to vacate the premises.

·         There was a significant cost associated with installing CCTV to the specification the police were requesting which, when coupled with the possibility of needing to vacate the premises at short notice, meant installation was not financially viable.

Robin Beynon said that he was responsible for organising the jazz events on Monday and Thursday nights.  He stated that he had never observed any incidents at the pub and felt that it had a distinct community feel.

Simon Ridall said that he was involved in the incident where an altercation had taken place at a location between the White Hart and the Charlie Butler.  He clarified the details on the incident, which involved a well known local trouble maker harassing him and a group of friends at the White Hart.  Mr Ridall said that he decided to leave the White Hart in favour of the Charlie Butler, but the person involved had decided to follow his group.  Mr Ridall said that he had struck the person in order to stop them following him approximately halfway between the two premises.  The man later returned to the Charlie Butler with his wife, although they quickly left .

Claire Mayer said that the Charlie Butler had been heavily involved in fundraising for her daughter’s karate ambitions.  Ms Meyer said that she had always found the Charlie Butler accommodating and had had family parties there.  She added that she had witnessed the effects of Mr Mallet’s lifelong condition and felt it was a contributing factor to him appearing to be drunk.

Councillor Gemma Stockley said that she had met Mr Mallet on many occasions, the first of which was as a result of his personal invite just after the 2010 election.  Cllr Stockley said that she always found the pub accommodating and was aware of the community feel and many events.  She said that there was a bus stand nearby which resulted in many transients in the area.  She reemphasised the point made by Mr Mallet about his ‘tenancy at will’, which made carrying out any significant improvements not financially viable.  Cllr Stockley explained that the current owner was intending to develop housing on the site, so was therefore not willing to extend Mr Mallet’s tenancy.

Phil Edney said that he was present during the incident where the glass was smashed outside.  Mr Edney stated that it involved just two people and was resolved without escalation.

PC McGann said in his closing statements that CCTV would have been beneficial to the police’s investigations, particularly in the case of the incident where a glass was smashed, as this happened immediately outside the premises.  He renewed his calls for CCTV to be added as a condition to the licence.

Mr Mallet, in his closing statement, said that the Charlie Butler was a community pub and was therefore not a violent one.  He stated that CCTV would not cover the places were incidents occurred as they were away from his premises.

RESOLVED that the conditions of the licence be AMENDED as per the attached decision notice.