Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory on an application for the grant of a premises licence made by Board of Trustees of The Armouries, for New Dock Hall - Royal Armouries, Armouries Drive, Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1LT.

The report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory presented an application for the grant of a premises licence made by Board of Trustees of The Armouries, for New Dock Hall - Royal Armouries, Armouries Drive, Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1LT.

In attendance for the hearing were:

·  Ben Williams of Kings Chambers – applicant’s representative

·  Ben Campbell – Venue Director, Royal Armouries

·  James Parker – DLA Piper

The Legal Officer outlined the procedure for the hearing.

The Licensing Officer presented the application, providing the following information:

·  The application was made to replace a lapsed premises licence. The premises had held a premises licence since November 2005 until the licence holder Royal Armouries (International) Plc., had been dissolved on 20^th September 2022. With no application to transfer the licence within the statutory 28 day period, the licence ceased to have effect with no option for it to be reinstated.

·  The application was for:

o  Sale of Alcohol every day 09:00-01:00

o  Plays, films, indoor sporting events, boxing and wrestling, live music, recorded music, performance of dance and anything of a similar description every day 09:00-01:00

o  Late night refreshment every day 23:00 01:00

o  Non-standard timings on New Year’s Eve from 09:00 to the end of hours on New Year’s Day.

·  A redacted copy of the application was appended to the submitted report at Appendix A. The applicant proposed to promote the licensing objectives by taking steps identified in Section M of the application. It was noted that the hours for activity differed from those in the application, as the applicant had amended the operating schedule following submission of the application by email which was attached to the report at Appendix B.

·  A map identifying the location of the premises was attached at Appendix C.

·  Representations had been received from Environmental Protection Team and West Yorkshire Police. However, negotiations had taken place with both responsible authorities and the operating schedule had been amended to include the measures agreed with both Environmental Protection Team and West Yorkshire Police. Copies of the agreements were appended to the report at Appendices D and E.

·  The application had attracted representations from members of the public opposed to the application on the grounds of public nuisance. Concerns had been expressed that they may be at risk of retribution should their details be made public. Therefore, personal details had been redacted and they were to remain anonymous. For this reason, they did not attend the hearing and requested that their representations be considered fully in their absence. Redacted copies of the representations were attached to the submitted report at Appendix F.

Mr Williams addressed the Sub Committee providing the following information:

·  He was of the view that it was a shame the residents had not attended the hearing as he thought they would have taken comfort in the changes being made. He explained that the Royal Armouries (International) Plc. had not gone into administration but had been dissolved which had brought new faces and a ‘new tide’. A recent study showed that the Royal Armouries brought £50 million to Leeds and was an important landmark for the city.

·  He was surprised at the scepticism and trepidation and was of the view there was no justification of fear to be had as the venue director only wished to meet with residents and discuss the proposed changes.

·  Mr Williams requested that the Sub Committee grant the application in full as applied for. The reason for this was that the amendments had only been made as the venue wanted to work with the residents but as no contact had been forthcoming, they were unsure if the proposed amendments were acceptable.

·  Mr Williams said that Mr Campbell had worked with the Environmental Protection Team and West Yorkshire Police and agreed to the measures proposed. He said that the Fire Service had also endorsed the proposed amendments.

·  Mr Williams said that the complaints of the three residents had been about issues arising in the past. This operator had run recent events using Temporary Event Notices (TEN’s) and had run them properly with no issues. It was noted that Mr Campbell had worked in the trade and was able to display considerable expertise in running events and that his expertise had come from running events at the York Railway Museum.

·  He acknowledged that there were valid reasons for the concerns of residents in this location. However, there would be a certain amount of noise for residents in this location as it was a bustling city centre location. He explained that Mr Campbell also lived in one of the apartments and was aware of issues that a city centre apartment can have. He acknowledged that residents did not like surprises and now provided the residents with a list of events to be held at the Armouries in advance, so they were aware of potential increased noise levels on certain days and evenings. He said that Mr Campbell was also aware of the noise that the emptying of bottles can have and had made positive changes to this.

·  It was the view that the hours of operation suggested by the residents were not workable.

·  Mr Williams addressed one of the examples set out in a representation saying that on the date in question there had been no events at the Armouries. He was only aware that on this weekend in question there had been a ladies’ lunch on the Friday and an exhibition of dance by children on the Sunday. It was the view that any noise related issues referred to were not from this venue.

·  Mr Williams said that Mr Campbell was a responsible operator who wanted to do things better and promised to run events properly and work with the residents.

Responding to questions from the Members the Sub Committee were provided with the following information:

·  Mr Campbell said that he had been operating at this venue for seven months dealing with the period of change after Covid. He had used TEN’s to run events such as award dinners, charity boxing matches and government conferences.

·  The venue had close links with West Yorkshire Police, Environmental Protection Team and the Fire Service.

·  A Dispersal Policy was now in operation at the venue. This had been lacking with the previous operators and was followed with all staff and security trained in the use of it. It ensured that patrons were dispersed quickly and quietly, with patrons held inside the venue until their taxis arrived. Signage had been added and there was a cordoned off smoking area away from residents, which was monitored.

·  Members were advised that the Dispersal Policy had evolved through a career in the industry and had worked well at other venues.

·  It was noted that stewards were on duty from the start of events covering the outside and inside areas. They were able to direct patrons attending events to taxi ranks, bus and train stations.

·  In relation to litter it was noted that the staff undertook periodic litter picks in teams of four with the stewards and cleared the area after all events. No bottles or glasses were allowed to be taken outside the venue.

·  The venue director was in liaison with the Taxi Association to discuss the need for taxis to attend after events.

·  A list of forthcoming events was sent to all residents for awareness advising them of events, dates and times. It was hoped that this would allow residents to be prepared for events and let them know of events if they wished to attend.

·  It was explained that the Royal Armouries had been part of a PFI scheme and had been owned by the Government when it was formed in 1993. Since Royal Armouries (International) Plc had been dissolved there had been changes of staff.

·  TEN’s had been used to host events with 26 days of events including a temporary marquee over three days. 370 events had been hosted over the past 7 months which had included conferences, dinners and exhibitions. Members were advised that the next event was due to be held on Friday 23^rd December 2022. It was noted that February – October were quieter months.

·  It was clarified that it was better and safer for the premises to have separate licences as they were two separate premises. The proposed DPS would be Rodney Taylor who had been the DPS previously and had remained after the buy-out.

Members considered all the information presented to them at the hearing and within the agenda pack and their discussions included:

·  Dispersal Policy and the exit now to the rear of the premises away from residential areas.

·  Stewards on the doors at all times.

·  The willingness of the operator to engage with residents to try and address concerns.

·  Seriousness of the new operator

·  The fact that glass and litter may not just be from these premises.

RESOLVED – To grant the application for a premises licence as applied for, as revised by the Applicant prior to the hearing, and subject to the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities, also in advance of the hearing.