Agenda item

Temporary Event Notice for Wykebeck Arms, Selby Road, Halton, Leeds, LS9 0EW

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory requests Members consideration on a Temporary Event Notice which has been received for the premises Wykebeck Arms, Selby Road, Halton, Leeds, LS9 0EW.


The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory, requested the Sub Committee consider a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) received for the Wykebeck Arms, Selby Road, Halton, Leeds, LS9 0EW. This matter had been accepted onto the agenda as a Late Item of business.


The TEN described the nature of the event as an ‘Afrobeat Music Event’ and requested the Sale By Retail of Alcohol from 22:00 hours on Saturday 23 March 2023 to 04:00 hours on Sunday 24 March 2024. The application stated that the maximum number of people, including staff, on the premises during the event would be 100 attendees.


The report noted that a Closure Notice under Section 19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 had been issued on 27 February 2024 following a licensing visit when a number of premises licence breaches were identified. West Yorkshire Police considered that allowing the premises to be used in the manner proposed would undermine the licensing objectives and had issued an Objection Notice to the TEN.


At the hearing, with the agreement of all parties, supplementary documents which included a copy of the S19 Closure Notice and copies of advertisements for the proposed event were provided.


The following attended the hearing:

PC N Heywood, West Yorkshire Police – Objector to the TEN

Mrs V Radford, LCC Entertainment Licensing (Enforcement)

Mr B Patterson, West Yorkshire Police (Observing)

PC A Clifford, West Yorkshire Police (Observing)

Mr B Barry, Premises User, Wykebeck Arms - applicant

Mrs A J Barry, Designated Premises Supervisor, Wykebeck Arms - applicant

Mr D Mort, Local Democracy Reporter (Observing)


The Sub Committee heard from the representative of West Yorkshire Police (WYP) who highlighted the following matters:

·  WYP objected to the TEN citing concerns relating to the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of public safety.

·  WYP and the Licensing Authority had received information from a member of the public that the premises had operated past the hours permitted on the Premises Licence at weekends which led to the visit on 27 February 2024.

·  At that visit, officers met with Mr Barry at the premises who described himself as the premises owner, to discuss the alleged late hours. The Inspection Sheet from that meeting listed the serious issues found at the premises which led to the issuing of the S19 Closure Notice.


The Sub Committee then heard from the representative of LCC Entertainment Licensing (Enforcement) in support of WYP who provided the following additional details:

·  Mr Barry was not named on the Premises Licence, but was the husband of Mrs Barry, the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS).


·  During the 27/02/24 meeting, officers noticed promotional flyers for the proposed March “Ignition” event which was advertised as “10 til late”. No TEN to facilitate that event was in place. Officers believed that the event would have been held without authorisation if they had not attended the premises on 27/02/24. Mr Barry was advised that a TEN was required and he rang Mrs Barry who made the application on-line whilst the visit continued.


·  Mr Barry admitted that the premises had operated past the permitted hours, however he told officers that he believed that if he operated for three months without any complaints, then he would get the additional hours on the licence. He had been advised that this was not the case.


·  During the visit, several issues of non-compliance were recorded in the Record of Inspection which had led to the S19 Closure Notice being issued. The Notice required the issues to be rectified within 14 days; these included:

-  No Premises Licence being displayed on site.

-  Employment of non-accredited door staff. Door staff should be booked through the Security Industry Authority (SIA) however Mr Barry had employed people he knew directly, although he had shown evidence of his attempts to obtain door staff via the usual route.

-  No incident register.

-  The premises had not advised WYP of upcoming events as required.

-  Condition 38 of the Premises Licence required that a DPS must be on site. Mr Barry had explained that the DPS, his wife, was on Maternity Leave and could not be on site. He was asked if he was a Personal Licence Holder so that an application to vary the DPS could be made for him to be DPS, Mr Barry confirmed that he did not hold a Personal Licence.

·  The Licensing Authority doubted that Mr Barry had read the conditions attached to the Premises Licence which stipulated 00:00 midnight as the terminal hour as he planned events which would close at 03:00 to 04:00 hours.


·  Mr Barry had previously operated the Gardeners Arms premises and LCC Licensing Enforcement colleagues had attended the premises due to it operating past the terminal hours stipulated on the Premises Licence.  Despite that, the Gardeners Arms continued to operate as it had and eventually a Noise Abatement enforcement notice was issued.


To conclude, the representative of WYP made the following comments:

-  WYP would have serious concerns if the 23/24 March event was held. The Wykebeck Arms was in a residential area with houses backing onto the pub boundary. There was concern for public safety as the premises was not designed for this style of event as well as concerns the event would cause public nuisance to local residents.

-  It was suggested that the proposed event was more akin to those held in a city centre super club event with 8 DJs proposed and more to be added. Mr Barry had said he had spent £10,000 on securing DJ acts already. Tickets were being sold at £25 each.

-  There was concern the event would exceed the 100 attendees specified on the TEN application.


As such, WYP requested the Sub Committee issue a Counter Notice to the TEN.


The Sub Committee then heard from Mr Barry, on behalf of the applicant, who began by acknowledging the objections to the application. Mr Barry provided the following information:

·  He acknowledged the mistakes he had made in the past, but he maintained these were due to misinformation.

·  The representation made by LCC Licensing Authority was based on all the honest answers he had given to questions at the meeting held 27/02/24. He had apologised for the issues identified and had worked to rectify these within the 14 days as required by the Notice.

·  Door staff were employed by him, not through a company. He was not aware of the stipulation that door staff should be registered and employed through a company. He did now have a contract with a security company and they would provide 2 door staff – he had shown his efforts to secure door staff to officers on 27/02/24.

·  He had not claimed to hold a Personal Licence, he had explained that his wife could not be at the premises all the time as she was on Maternity Leave.

·  He had not said he had spent £15,000 on the event. He had said it would cost £10,000 as he was trying to promote the Wykebeck Arms. Tickets were being sold on-line and only 155 had been sold so far. The 300 tickets available for the event were intended to generate £15,000. The event promoters also had tickets to distribute to the DJ acts for their supporters. He had not stated the event would be for up to 100 people. The Wykebeck Arms was not a nightclub, there would not be 500 people on the premises.

·  A register was maintained which he used to keep track of things and he had showed it to officers.

·  When they moved from the Gardeners Arms, he had thought that if they operated the Wykebeck Arms with no complaints for three months, then he would be able to provide evidence of the successful operation of the pub. He was aware of the pub’s previous reputation but this had improved since they had been there. Only one complaint was made whilst he had operated the Gardeners Arms and they had chosen to move afterwards to a better opportunity.

·  He had only operated past the permitted closing time on New Years Eve, 8th February on his wife’s birthday and 2 other occasions.

·  The proposed 23/24 March event was not just about promoting his business as the event would host local artists and had been promoted widely.

·  He feared for his business and for his safety if the event did not go ahead. Artists and promoters had advised him that he must pay them any outstanding balance and it was not their fault if the event was cancelled.

·  Since 2012, food had been his focus and he had applied for permission for Late Night Refreshment previously, with the Premises Licence in his wife’s name.

·  His attempt to build a database to show WYP that events had been held successfully at the premises before making an application to amend the Premises Licence had been a mistake. Based on all the things he had been told about the previous patrons of the pub, he had wanted to operate for three months to be able to show the changes that he had made. Previously, people like him would not have been allowed in the Wykebeck Arms, but now he was there he could show the change that had been made, and he felt that the local residents were supportive of his efforts. 

·  The only time a call had been made to the police was by themselves when two people had been arguing and a window had been broken.


Mr Barry concluded by reiterating his investment in the event and his intention to make the business work for his family. He expressed disappointment that evidence presented to the Sub Committee was based on the information he had provided at the 27/02/24 licensing visit. He asked the Members to give him a chance and emphasised that any mistakes he had made were because his focus was on the food side of the business and he hadn’t been aware of the requirements of the Premises Licence.


The Sub Committee then asked questions of the applicant and the following additional information was provided:

-  The style of music at the proposed event was described as lively music such as Afro-Beats, UK Garage, Hip/Hop and R&B. It could be loud, but would be contained within the premises, not in the garden as had been the case at the Gardeners Arms.

-  He hoped to recoup his financial investment in the event with 300 attendees, 150 tickets were set aside for the promoters of the acts. It was noted that 300 attendees were expected but the application stipulated 100 attendees (to include staff) Mr Barry explained that he called his wife during the meeting on 27/02/24 so she could make the application. He had been asked how many tickets had been sold but at that time he had not been able to say exactly how many, possibly 75 to 100, and the figure of 100 was heard by Mrs Barry and included in error in the application.

-  The Sub Committee noted that WYP and the Environmental Protection Team had assessed the proposed event on the basis that 100 attendees were expected and explained that their decision had to be based on the application before them.

-  Although the application proposed the sale of alcohol from 10:00 until 04:00 hours, it was intended that alcohol sales would cease at 03:00 /03:15 to give patrons time to finish their drinks. The premises would close at 04:00.

-  In answer to a query over how long he had worked in licensed premises, Mr Barry stated that his time had been divided between the two premises – the Gardeners Arms and Wykebeck Arms. He had been at the Wykebeck Arms since 15 December 2023 and had opened for business on New Years Eve

-  During the planning for the proposed March event, none of the proposed acts or promoters had suggested that a TEN would be required.

-  Mr Barry did express some concern for his safety if the event did not go ahead as he knew the proposed acts would be unhappy if they did not receive full payment, even if the event was cancelled.


The representative of WYP then summarised their representation, emphasising that this was to be a large event until 04:00 hours, and nothing that had been said gave WYP confidence to assuage concerns for public safety, prevention of public nuisance or prevention of crime and disorder.


During deliberations, the Licensing Sub Committee considered the TEN application and the written submissions from West Yorkshire Police. Members also carefully considered the verbal submissions made at the hearing made on behalf of the applicant and representatives of West Yorkshire Police and the Licensing Authority, and had regard to the Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003 and associated Guidance.


The Sub Committee expressed concern that the premises had been operating beyond its permitted hours, and in all the circumstance of this case, in order to uphold the licensing objectives,


RESOLVED – To issue a counter notice under Section 105 of the Licensing Act 2003.



Supporting documents: