Agenda item

Reign, 215-217 Piccadilly, London, W1J 9HF (“The Premises”)

17/11071/LITENP (Temporary Event Notice)

Proposal:

• The sale by retail of alcohol;
• Provision of Regulated Entertainment; and
• Late Night Refreshment.

Event Period:     

• 00:00 on 21 October 2017 until 04:00 on 21 October 2017; and
• 21:00 on 21 October 2017 until 04:00 on 22 October 2017.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a Temporary Event Notice in respect of Reign, 215-217 Piccadilly, London, W1J 9HF.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee the applicant confirmed that the sole effect of the notice was to permit a last entry time of 01:30 instead of 00:30.

Mr Kolvin, representing the applicant, suggested that since the Premises had been operated by the current owners the Police appeared to be satisfied with the style of operation currently in place. No complaints had been submitted to Environmental Health (EH) and the Police had not been notified of any issues arising from the Premises in relation to crime and disorder. There had only been one incident and this related to an issue which had subsequently been detected with the ID scanners. The issue with the machine was one that had also subsequently been detected on other scanners located at different venues. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises was highly serviced with thirty-eight staff on site during operating hours. The incident in question related to a customer who had been in the Premises for approximately one hour and when he displayed signs of intoxication safety procedures were followed. The customer was assessed, his friends were summoned following which he walked out of the Premises and continued further down the street where he then subsequently collapsed to the floor. The Premises staff were unaware of the incident until the customer’s parents contacted them explaining that he was underage and had gained entry to the Premises using a fake ID. The applicant contacted the ID scanner provider immediately to ascertain any issues with the machines and straightaway implemented extra ID checking processes. Discussions with the Police had taken place and Mr Kolvin suggested that they were content that the applicant had done everything possible to ensure such a situation did not happen again. Mr Kolvin confirmed that the application was not seeking to change the capacity of the Premises.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr Kolvin explained that the fault detected with the ID scanner had been found on other machines at different premises. Discussions with the supplier were underway to rectify the issue. It was confirmed that since the incident the Applicant had increased human ID checks and staff had received specialist training and therefore it was submitted that the appropriate remedial action had been undertaken to promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee was given the rationale for submitting the application in the first place and Mr Kolvin explained that the Premises was a late night venue which catered for wealthy people of high standing. The operating model depended on customers entering the venue, following a meal for example, during peak hours. No special events were to be held during the operation of the TEN and the venue would operate as usual.

PC Deweltz, representing the Metropolitan Police, confirmed that its representation was maintained based on the grounds that the application undermined the licensing objective of preventing children from harm.  Condition 55, which related to a last entry time on the current premises licence, existed because of a review brought by the Police in January 2017. The Premises had subsequently closed and the licence had then transferred to the current operator. PC Deweltz confirmed that there was no link between the current and previous operators. On 24 August 2017 the applicant had applied for a variation to the premises licence to extend the last entry time to 01:30. The Sub-Committee decided to retain a last entry of 00:30 as the Applicant had not yet demonstrated their ability for this condition to be relaxed. As a result, the applicant had submitted a number of TENs which were granted allowing the last entry time to be extended to 01:30. These were granted as they were only for weekends and they provided an opportunity for the Applicant to display that it could responsibly manage a last entry time of 01:30. Subsequently on 24 September 2017 a 17-year-old minor was permitted to access the Premises using a fake ID. The ID scanner in operation did approve the fake ID however if a staff member had clicked onto the screen of the scanner it would have shown that the ID had expired. This irregularity would have been flagged up and then staff members would have had the opportunity to ask questions of the customer and properly assess his level of drunkenness.

PC Deweltz explained that when the individual then entered the venue he became visibly inebriated after consuming alcohol. The General manager then spoke to the individual as would be expected. At no point did the Premises SIA turn on their body cameras as should be the protocol when dealing with a vulnerable person who was clearly inebriated. The staff had a duty of care for the individual and an ambulance should have been called when the individual collapsed to the floor. PC Deweltz confirmed that between leaving the Premises and collapsing to the floor the individual had his watch stolen and a crime report had been submitted. The Sub-Committee was shown three videos of the individual immediately after leaving the Premises.

Mr Kolvin stated that the individual was assessed inside the Premises and then he exited with his friends in a cogent, unaided, manner. He walked away from the venue and then seven minutes later subsequently collapsed. The Premises staff were unaware this had occurred on the night it occurred. The Sub-Committee was shown CCTV footage of the individual exiting the Premises.

PC Deweltz highlighted that there were four areas of concern that the Sub-Committee needed to take into consideration. Firstly, the individual was only seventeen years old. Secondly, the individual had entered the Premises after 00:30 because the venue was operating under a TEN. Thirdly, the individual became so intoxicated he had to be conveyed to a hospital by an ambulance. Fourthly, during the incident the individual’s watch was stolen.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr John Common, the General Manager of the Premises, confirmed there was a policy in place to keep intoxicated people within the venue and provide them with a safe space where they could sober up. In this instance the individual was assessed and was judged to be sober enough to leave as evidenced by the fact he walked away from the Premises unaided.

The Council’s Legal Adviser asked PC Deweltz if in his opinion the operator failed in relation to their management duties on this occasion and failed to promote the licensing objectives? PC Deweltz confirmed to the Sub-Committee that in his opinion the operator had failed in their duty of care to the customers and a more proactive approach could have been taken. It was acknowledged that there was a deficiency with the ID scanner however the licensing objectives were not promoted on this occasion.

Mr Kolvin responded that the individual had been assessed, his ID had successfully passed through the scanner and when it was recognised that he was inebriated he was taken outside the venue. The operator had learned from this experience and further measures had now been introduced which the Police were satisfied with. PC Deweltz confirmed that no issues had been reported with regards to the operation of other TENs at the Premises.

Following a suggestion from the Sub-Committee the applicant agreed to sign the Premises up to the Best Bar None accreditation scheme.

After carefully considering the application the Sub-Committee requested that the Council’s Policy Adviser provide an update on how Westminster City Council aim to prevent situations like the one detailed before it from occurring. The Policy Adviser informed all parties present that the launch of Westminster City Council’s Licensing Charter was expected at the end of October 2017. It was specifically aimed at helping and safeguarding people in such circumstances as described earlier. It was an industry led, voluntary scheme and had been developed in consultation with a number of responsible operators throughout the borough. It was based on the Best Bar None scheme and the Council encouraged as many operators as possible to sign up to it.

The Sub-Committee noted the severity of the incident in question and had carefully considered all the evidence provided by all parties. The Sub-Committee was, persuaded by the arguments, advanced by the Applicant that the said incident was merely a one off and that proper measures had now been put in place to prevent a re-occurrence. However, this application was for a TEN and the Sub-Committee felt this would provide an opportunity for the operator to demonstrate that extending the last permitted entry time for a limited time period would not undermine the licensing objectives. Previous TEN applications operated at the venue had not caused any concern and following the incident the applicant had introduced further stringent measures to ensure it would not happen again. The applicant had stated that lessons had been learned and allowing the TEN would provide the applicant with an opportunity to demonstrate that this was the case and that the licencing objectives would be promoted. Further reassurance was provided by the applicant’s confirmation that it would sign up to the Best Bar None scheme. The application was therefore granted accordingly having regard to the responsible steps the Applicant undertook following the incident, in relation to training of staff, co-operation with the Police and the Applicant’s unblemished track-record to date.