Minutes:
The Sub-Committee then considered representations from Ms Feliciano-Padron on behalf of WYP who provided the background of recent events leading up to the Review application and details of previous incidents dating from 2009 directly related to Gatecrasher which included serious assaults, incidents of disorder, under age drinking and drug use. Verbal submissions were also made by PC Arkle; Sgt Mynard and Acting Supt Francis.
WYP held concerns over the failure of the venue management team to report or deal effectively with incidents or address concerns over the type of event and promotions held at the club which attracted increased levels of crime and disorder. Information was also supplied on the level of WYP resources directed to the new Briggate area of the city to deal with the increased number of incidents. WYP highlighted the measures already within the Premises Licence to prevent crime and disorder which were not adhered to by the Club. WYP suggested their evidence showed the premises management put profit before public safety.
WYP suggested that the inability or unwillingness of the premises management team to accept responsibility for the link between the activities at the premises and the rise in crime and disorder was a contributing factor to the stabbing incident at the premises on 15 January 2011 which triggered the application for the Review.
WYP had serious concerns regarding public safety and the level of crime and disorder associated with the Club. WYP did not feel that modification or suspension of the licence or removal of a licensable activity or the DPS would be sufficient to deal with the problems associated with the Club given their experience of the management of the Club. WYP maintained that revocation of the Premises Licence was the only effective course of action to take to uphold the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective in this case.
The Sub Committee then heard from Mr Horne on behalf of the PLH who responded in detail to the evidence of WYP contained within the incident log and set the incidents in the context of the night time economy in the New Briggate location. Mr Horne directed Members attention to those incidents he stated were not attributed to Gatecrasher. He acknowledged WYP comments about the premises management; stating that there had been a breakdown in communication, not only between the local and national Gatecrasher management but also between WYP and the premises management.
Mr Horne stated that the performance of the local management team had deteriorated recently and the DPS at the time of the incident on 15 January 2011 had now been removed. He suggested that Gatecrasher had reacted to WYP advice, and had cancelled events when serious concerns had been raised. The Sub Committee also heard submissions from Mr Wood; Mr Swain and Mr Raine.
Mr Horne outlined the following measures to be considered as action to take in the matter of the review:
· Monthly meetings at Director level (including the managing director and operations Director of Gatecrasher) with WYP
· To undertake a risk assessment of each event to be submitted to WYP 28 days in advance of the event
· Polycarbonate “glasses” and PET (plastic) bottles to be used throughout any event deemed medium or high risk
· A face recognition camera to be installed within the reception area
· Improvement to the dispersal policy
Mr Raine additionally outlined the measures implemented since the Interim Steps Hearing on 21 January 2011. In conclusion Mr Horne stated that the local management policies had failed, but reiterated that the senior management had now taken action and had changed both the door team and the local management team. He maintained that this Review application was the first intervention from WYP and revocation on the first instance was not necessary, as the concerns raised in the application could be addressed with the introduction of the new DPS and the measures offered.
Following full and lengthy consideration of the options open to the Sub-Committee in the determination of Review applications; Members were satisfied by the evidence of WYP. Members concluded that the Gatecrasher premises had consistently undermined both the prevention of crime and disorder and the promotion of public safety licensing objectives for at least 13 months.
The Sub Committee considered the causes of this, having regard to the Section 182 Guidance and the Councils’ own Licensing Policy. They considered whether Miss Sharp the previous Designated Premises Supervisor or the wider management team were at fault.
Members concluded that the blame lay with the Company’s approach to the management of the Leeds Gatecrasher premises. They gave weight to the following matters that Members found as a fact, based on the evidence submitted and the failings admitted by the Premises Licence Holder:
· The problems associated with the premises span the life of two Designated Premises Supervisors
· The Operations Director had been present at meetings with WYP and the DPS
· That senior management failed to deal with incidents in a manner which promoted the prevention of crime and disorder objective
· That the decision to host the “We Play Vinyl” Friday night event had been taken with the knowledge of senior management and contrary to the advice of WYP
· That management failed to act on WYP advice
· That the premises operated contrary to its’ own policies
The Sub Committee considered the measures offered by the PLH at the hearing, but Members were not convinced that these would be sufficient or that the management team could adhere to them. Members further noted that the DPS had been changed by the management team on 11 February 2011, but noted that the DPS had changed in 2010 to little effect.
The Sub Committee therefore concluded that it was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances of this case to take the following action in order to promote the licensing objectives
RESOLVED – To revoke the Premises Licence