Minutes:
At the request of the Chairman, Tony Grover, on behalf of Daniel Hill, presented his case.
He explained that the premises was situated in Norfolk Street alongside other premises such as Dr Thirstys and Bar and Beyond. He pointed out that Bar and Beyond was directly opposite Bar One Hundred.
Tony Grover informed the Sub-Committee that the Licence Holder of Bar One Hundred had implemented a maximum capacity of 180 at the venue, although the venue could take up to 230 people. He explained that the Licence Holder would like to extend the opening hours by one hour on Friday and Saturday nights and Bank Holidays. This would be an extension from 3.45am to 4.45am with the premises closed by 5.00am.
The reason for the request was to allow some flexibility and Tony Grover stated that the opening time would only be extended if there was a good atmosphere in the venue and it would not be the norm to do it every weekend.
It was explained that a Temporary Event Notice would not be feasible as this was something that would have to be planned for and the Licence Holder wanted flexibility. Tony Grover explained that the Licence Holder ‘ran a tight ship’ and Members were aware of the Mandatory Conditions that had been placed on his Licence, which included the necessity for an anti-drug policy, operational CCTV when the premises was open for business, noise management plan and a door staff deployment plan. It was explained that the Licence Holder had more door staff than was required in the plan and he kept all the necessary records for the police.
The Sub-Committee was also referred to the condition relating to only allowing six people outside to smoke after 2.30am. It was explained that the door staff controlled this and in the last two years there had been no intervention from the Police or any other Responsible Authority to challenge the Licence.
Tony Grover explained that the Licence Holder had followed best practice by consulting Norfolk Constabulary and the Borough Council on potential changes to his licence and had met with the Senior Licensing Officer and Chris Brooks from Norfolk Constabulary. Tony Grover stated that at that time they didn’t require any changes to conditions and instead they praised the Licence Holder. Subsequently the variation application was submitted. Tony Grover felt that the Police had now had a change of heart since meeting with the Licence Holder.
Tony Grover referred to two letters of support which he had submitted to the Sub-Committee for consideration in advance of the Hearing.
Tony Grover then referred to the letters of objection which had been included in the Agenda. He felt that this was scaremongering and was not based on fact or evidence. He referred to the Police objection and informed those present that he used to be a Police officer and dealt with the night time economy in a supervisory role. He felt that the representations submitted by the Police contained discrepancies and there was a lack of supporting evidence.
Tony Grover stated that the Police representations mainly concerned matters of Police resource and this was not a matter for the Licensing Sub-Committee to consider.
Daniel Hill referred to some of the incidents reported by the Police and he explained that in some cases these had not been followed up by the Police and he only held CCTV records for thirty days so could not go back and check. Tony Grover stated that any incidents attributable to the premises were all dealt with promptly and correctly by door and bar staff.
Daniel Hill stated that Bar and Beyond had a capacity of 500 and a lot of people from there could congregate outside Bar One Hundred, so not all incidents were perhaps attributable to Bar One Hundred and CCTV would be required for clarification.
Tony Grover referred to the letter of support received from the Taxi Office and stated that this highlighted the positive effect of staggering closing times along Norfolk Street. The Chair asked for clarification from the Legal Advisor as to if the letter of support could be accepted as it was felt that the Taxi Office could benefit financially from the extended hours. The Legal Advisor stated that it could be accepted, but it was up to the Sub-Committee on how much weight they should give to it.
Daniel Hill stated that there was no taxi pickups from outside Bar One Hundred, customers were required to walk to the taxi office.
Tony Grover informed the Sub-Committee that the Licence Holder was prepared to offer a condition regarding the last entry time, should the additional hour be granted. He could restrict entry from 3.15am, which was 45 minutes before a lot of the other venues closed.
Tony Grover concluded that he would like the Sub-Committee to consider the discrepancies in the information provided by the Police and the lack of supporting evidence, the letters of support received and the Section 182 Guidance which stated that decisions should be based on evidence.
The Chair thanked Tony Grover and Daniel Hill for their report and invited questions from all parties.
The Environmental Health Manager referred to the condition offered by the Licence Holder, and asked when, during the evening would the decision would be made to open later and how would this be communicated to staff and customers. Daniel Hill stated that a decision would be made by 3.00am. A sign could then be put up in the window saying that 3.15am would be last entry.
The Environmental Health Manager asked what the Licence Holder would do if there was a big rush of customers at 3.15am. Daniel Hill explained that there was a core customer base and there was not usually an influx of young people at the venue. His patrons were usually thirty plus. Daniel Hill also referred to the extra doormen and the marshal for smokers. Daniel Hill also stated that he was selective on who came into his venue.
Andy Owens from the Police, referred to a variation application made in January 2018 for the premises which removed the last entry time and he asked if this was because of conflict on the door. He understood that there were issues with customers congregating outside when they had been refused entry. Daniel Hill stated that there was no conflict on the door and the previous application to remove the last entry time was because some staff from other venues came to Bar One Hundred after their shift and he felt it was unfair to refuse them entry.
Andy Owens stated that the reality would be that Bar One Hundred would become a last destination venue and, even if door staff were proactive, there would be additional conflict. Tony Grover stated that the decision as to whether to open later could be made by 3.00am and would only be on rare occasions. The venue would make contact with the Police if this was happening and would also put signs up. He acknowledged that there may be some people taking advantage, but there would not be a large influx of customers.
Daniel Hill stated that a Temporary Event Notice had been applied for by the venue last year, but the Police had objected to this and it had not been granted.
Chris Brooks explained that there would be a risk if the opening time was extended as currently there was a tolerable level of incidents.
Councillor Parish commented that although the Licence Holder stated that opening late would not be a regular occurrence, if the variation application was granted, there would be no control over this and there would be nothing to stop the venue opening for an additional hour every weekend. Daniel Hill explained that he had offered to the Police and the Borough Council to limit the extended openings to 12 a year, but was informed by the Borough Council that this was not something that could be conditioned. Chris Brooks stated that he would not have agreed to 12 openings per year.
Councillor Sandell asked if the venue had a dedicated smoking area and Daniel Hill explained that there was an area at the rear of the premises but this could not be used because of concerns raised previously by the Borough Council’s Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance team relating to noise. He explained that he had asked Norfolk County Council Highways for barriers outside the front of the premises, but these had not been forthcoming.
Councillor Sandell asked how the smoking area out of the front was controlled. Daniel Hill explained that door staff and the marshal controlled this and regular customers were aware of the arrangements.
Councillor Sandell asked if regular meetings were held with door staff and Daniel Hill explained that he queried if some of the incidents reported by the Police were attributable to his premises as he had not received reports from his staff, or a follow up from the Police.