Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedures were noted.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To hear and determine an Objection Notice given by the Metropolitan Police in respect of a Temporary Event Notice.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

Mr Darren Nolan – applicant

Sgt David George – responsible authority

Mr Nolan introduced his application for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN).  He said that he acquired the premises on 1 November 2011 when he purchased it from the previous owner.  There was minimal trade, with the exception of days where there was rugby being played.  In order to address this, refurbishment was currently being undertaken at the premises.

The purpose of the application was to enable the upstairs function room to be used for an office Christmas party, not the provision of an open to the public nightclub.

Mr Nolan said that he was sorry for being in breach of his licence shortly after taking over at the premises.  He attributed this to the high amount of work taking place there, meaning he had not yet familiarised his bar manager with the conditions of the licence.  He added that he should not be judged because of the incident on 30 September, as the Garryowen was still under the responsibility of the previous management.  Prior to this incident, there has been very few incidents related to the Rugby Tavern/Garryowen.

Following questions from members of the sub-committee, members were advised that:

·         There was a birthday party in the upstairs function room on 19 November when there was a breach of a condition of the licence.

·         Mr Nolan said that he would be seeking to liaise more closely with the local police in future.

·         The event for which the TEN was needed was an invite only office party for around 75 guests.

·         The downstairs part of the pub was going to be operating as normal, which meant that door staff would be present.

·         The bar manager was a very experienced employee and the non-compliance was due to Mr Nolan not having an opportunity to advise them of the conditions on the licence.

Sgt David George introduced the police’s objection to the TEN.  He was concerned that there were no safeguards in place for the event, which was compounded by Mr Nolan not yet gaining the trust of the local police by breaching the conditions of his licence.  Sgt George said that when the breaches were observed, it was his first visit to the Garryowen.  He observed unauthorised sales of alcohol and music being played beyond permitted hours.  It was reported that there has been a second occasion of the licence being breached when further unauthorised sales took place.

Sgt George said that he was concerned about Mr Nolan’s aspirations for the premises, citing an example of a recent sign advertising the opening of a nightclub.  The police were particularly concerned about this because nightclubs typically attracted a lively clientele, which could cause policing issues in the section of Twickenham with the highest night time crime rate.  Sgt George said that he believed the additional ‘wind down’ time at the end of the evening would mean those exiting the venue could clash with those present at other pubs closing at the same time.

Following questions from members of the sub-committee, members were advised that:

·         The police believed that entry to the first floor of the premises was going to be on a paying basis and this TEN was a precursor to a substantive application for a nightclub type venue.

·         Sgt George was concerned that lots of minor breaches of the licence were accumulating.

Mr Nolan was invited to make a closing submission.  He said that he had been a publican for eleven years and now owned a number of pubs in the surrounding area, each with varying opening hours.  Mr Nolan added that he had never had one of his licenses reviewed and he felt that he was a strong enough manager to run a venue such as the Garryowen.  It was confirmed that the pub’s management wanted to work with the local police and licensing authority and would be seeking to do so.

Sgt George said that as the committee could not place any conditions on a TEN, it should be refused.  He was particularly concerned about the lack of dedicated security for the event and reaffirmed worries that this was a precursor for a nightclub.

Resolved that the Temporary Event Notice be granted for the following reasons:

“The Licensing Sub-Committee decided not to give Counter Notice for the TEN for the following reasons:

1.             The TEN in effect was only required to allow dancing to continue for 1 hour, to accompany other licensable activities until 2am.

2.             The incident on 30 September 2011 [23.25] was not connected to Mr Nolan or his new management, so would be disregarded.

3.             On this occasion, the Committee accepted that in respect of the 19^th November 2011 a miscommunication had occurred.

The Committee made it plain to Mr Nolan that licensing compliance within the Borough was taken very seriously and that compliance with his Premises Licence authorisations and conditions must be absolute.”