Minutes:
6. Decision of the Sub-Committee
The application is granted on the following terms and conditions.
Licensable activities and times permitted:
A: Plays
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 03:00, and 08:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 04:00
B: Films
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 03:00, and 08:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 04:00
E: Live music
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 03:00, and 10:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 04:00
F: Recorded music
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 03:00, and 11:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 04:00
G: Performances of dance
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 03:00, and 10:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 04:00
H: Anything of a similar description to that falling within E, F or G
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 14:00
I: Late night refreshment
Friday 3 June 2016 23:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 05:00, and 23:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 05:00
J: Supply of Alcohol
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 – 03:00, and 10:00 – 23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 04:00
L: Hours premises to be open to the public
Friday 3 June 2016 12:00 – 23:59
Saturday 4 June 201600:00 –23:59
Sunday 5 June 2016 00:00 – 14:00
Mandatory conditions:
As provided in the Licensing Act 2003 and Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010.
Other conditions:
See attached Schedule.
7. Reasons for the Decision
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application for a premises licence, and the evidence, both written and oral, supplied by Tea Party Matter Ltd (the applicant) and Hampshire Constabulary (the objector).
Tea Party Matter Ltd has applied for a premises licence in respect of an event known as Somerley Tea Party, to take place at the Somerley Estate from 3 – 5 June 2016.
The applicant’s solicitor informed the Sub-Committee that event organisers expect to sell around 8000 tickets to the event. He said the applicant accepted that the event was not perfect last year, and that the main problem at the 2015 event was egress from the site. He said that a coach broke down, blocking the egress route. The applicant has this year produced a new traffic management plan (which was in the documents given to the Sub-Committee in advance of the hearing) which includes contingencies should one route become blocked. The addition of on-site camping means that fewer people are expected to be leaving the site in the hours of darkness. From the tickets sold to date, the applicant expects that around two thirds of patrons will camp on site, with around one third leaving the site when the event finishes in the early hours of Sunday morning. This would mean that the majority of people will leave the site in daylight hours, throughout Sunday morning. The applicant is arranging coaches to Bournemouth and Southampton, and some to London. Patrons can purchase coach tickets in advance. The applicant will arrange sufficient coaches for all pre-purchased coach tickets, plus a 50% contingency for those who have not pre-purchased tickets. They will also run shuttle buses to Verwood and Ringwood for locals. The applicant has made arrangements with a taxi company to have an on-site office.
The applicant’s solicitor acknowledged that there are a number of inconsistencies in the draft Event Management Plan and its appendices. He said that these are draft documents, which will be amended and updated as the event approaches and plans are developed and finalised. He noted that the police attended the 2015 event, but that despite police assertions that there was significant drug use at the 2015 event, nobody was stopped and searched by the police and there were no arrests and no recorded crime. He said that at this year’s event there will be 85 security staff on duty on the Friday, and 102 security staff on Saturday. It is the intention of the organisers that the event will run without any requirement for special policing.
Hampshire Constabulary invited the Sub-Committee to reject the application. They stated that the applicant’s draft Event Management Plan had been submitted later than the police had expected, and that the latest version of this document (including its lengthy appendices) was only sent to the police five days before the Sub-Committee hearing. Having reviewed the latest version of the Event Management Plan, the police were still not confident that the applicant’s plans sufficiently addressed the concerns which arose from the 2015 event. The concerns from 2015 included problems with patrons egressing the event, and open drug use at the event. The police said that their main concerns for the 2016 event were egress of patrons from the site, and a lack of security planning. The police noted that the applicant wishes to hold a larger event than last year, allowing entry to up to 9999 people, and to have on-site camping for patrons. In the police’s experience, when events expand beyond 5000 people, the risk of issues arising increases. The police do not think that this has been given sufficient consideration by the applicant. The police view was that, given the problems which arose last year, the applicant should demonstrate that they can run a safe and successful event under the existing premises licence (which would permit them to hold a one day event for up to 4999 people), rather than being permitted to hold an expanded event. The applicants have not approached the police to discuss the level of policing which will be required at the event. The police stated that there are errors and inconsistencies in the draft Event Management Plan and its appendices. The Sub-Committee are being asked to place reliance on assurances by the applicant that the documents will be finalised, and will provide plans for a safe event. However, the police said that last year the applicant submitted a number of documents to the police late, leading to last minute discussions and planning. The police said that the documents now relied on by the applicant, and the problems from the previous events, do not inspire confidence that the applicant is capable of running a safe event. The police said that two people were stopped and searched by the police at last year’s event, but the police in attendance at the Sub-Committee hearing did not know whether anything had been found in these searches.
Without prejudice to their position that the premises licence should be refused, Hampshire Constabulary produced a list of conditions which they suggested might be attached to the premises licence if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application. The Sub-Committee heard representations from the applicant’s solicitor and the police regarding the conditions listed by Hampshire Constabulary.
The Sub-Committee considered that the most significant problem which arose at the 2015 event was a problem with patrons leaving the event. The Sub-Committee accepted the police’s evidence that a coach broke down on the egress route causing significant tailbacks, and that a large number of pedestrians decided to leave the site on foot in the early hours of the morning, posing a risk to themselves and to vehicles by walking along unlit country roads at night. The Sub-Committee considered that the applicant had taken steps which were likely to improve egress from this year’s event. In particular, the Sub-Committee took into account that around two thirds of patrons were expected to camp on site, meaning that fewer people would be leaving the site during the hours of darkness. The Sub-Committee took into account the applicant’s evidence that it was arranging coaches to Bournemouth and Southampton for those who pre-booked coach tickets, with an additional 50% capacity for those who wished to purchase a coach ticket on the night. The Sub-Committee also took into account that the applicant was arranging shuttle buses for patrons in Verwood and Ringwood, had made arrangements for an on-site taxi office, and had put in place contingencies should the main egress route become blocked. The Sub-Committee took into account the police representation that the applicant could not guarantee that people would not leave the site on foot, but the Sub-Committee considered that the applicant had demonstrated that they were putting in place measures to reduce the likelihood that patrons would do so. Overall the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the applicant had taken steps to address the problems with egress which arose following the 2015 event, and that the traffic management plans for this year’s event were satisfactory. In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee did not consider that concerns regarding egress from the event would justify the refusal of the premises licence.
The Sub-Committee then considered the concerns raised by the police regarding the planning of the event, in particular relating to security (which, along with traffic management, the police identified as their main concern). The Sub-Committee accepted the police’s evidence that there were a number of errors and inconsistencies in the draft documentation submitted to date by the applicant. Whilst the Sub-Committee considered this to be regrettable, there were no errors or inconsistencies which were so significant as to warrant the refusal of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee accepted the applicant’s evidence that it was normal practice for the Event Management Plan, including its numerous appendices, to be amended and updated as planning for the event developed. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had employed a Security Management company to plan and run the security at the event. Having reviewed the documents produced to date by the applicant, in particular the Operational and Crowd Safety Management Plan, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the applicant was taking appropriate steps to ensure the security of the event. The Sub-Committee took into account that there was no recorded crime and that nobody had been arrested at the 2015 event. In particular they noted that despite police assertions that police officers had witnessed open drug use at the event, there had been no arrests for drug-related offences, nor any confiscations of drugs by police inside the event. The Sub-Committee concluded that there was no substantive evidence before them that the applicant’s security plans were insufficient to deal with the risk of crime and disorder at the 2016 event, nor that the applicant would fail to comply with the plans as drafted.
The Sub-Committee did not consider that it would be appropriate to refuse to grant the premises licence on the grounds that the applicant had not submitted its planning documents to the responsible authorities as early as the police had expected. The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant that they were committed to working with the Safety Advisory Group to ensure the safe running of the event, and was satisfied that they would continue to do so.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the police had demonstrated that granting the premises licence would be detrimental to the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the licence, subject to conditions which were appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. The conditions are listed in the Schedule to this decision, and are largely consistent with the operating schedule, amended to take into account the conditions suggested by the police, and subject to some amendments by the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee took into account the representations made by the applicant and the police regarding the conditions suggested by the police.
- The Sub-Committee consider it important that the applicant finalises its plans at least 28 days prior to the event, so that all members of the Safety Advisory Group can ensure that they are satisfied with the final plans, and can raise any final concerns with the applicant with sufficient time for such concerns to be resolved. The Sub-Committee noted that the police wished to include in the conditions a requirement that, should any changes be made to the security plan after this time, this must be approved by the police. The Sub-Committee did not consider this to be appropriate in circumstances where the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the applicant was taking appropriate steps to provide suitable security for the event. The Sub-Committee was concerned that if the police were given the right to refuse changes to the security plan, this essentially gave the police the power to prevent the event from going ahead. The Sub-Committee did not think this was appropriate, in circumstances where the licensing authority, via its Sub-Committee, had granted the premises licence. The Sub-Committee considered it appropriate that any changes made to the security plan less than 28 days prior to the event should be discussed with police, and that the applicant should have regard to any representations made by the police, as this would ensure continued dialogue between the two parties.
- The Sub-Committee did not consider it appropriate to include a condition preventing the applicant from selling spirits at the event without a mixer. The Sub-Committee took account of the police view that the sale of spirits without a mixer was more likely to lead to people becoming drunk. The Sub-Committee concluded that as long as the bar staff had received appropriate training to prevent the sale of alcohol to drunk people (which is required by a condition), it was not appropriate for the Sub-Committee in this case to restrict the drinks which the applicant could sell to its customers.
- The police suggested a condition requiring SIA security staff to search every person who entered the site. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the Operational and Crown Management Plan, and the Entry Policy and Procedure include appropriate provisions regarding searching, and that a separate condition requiring everyone to be searched was not appropriate.
- The police suggested that a condition should be included which required a specified minimum number of medical staff to be on site. The applicant noted that this would require them to have that level of medical staff, even if they sold very few tickets. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that a condition requiring that the minimum standard of first aid should be in accordance with a risk assessment, which should take into account the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive’s Event Safety Guide, was sufficient to promote public safety.
- The police suggested a condition requiring at least one member of SIA security staff at each bar at all times that the bar was open. The Sub-Committee did not consider it appropriate to impose such a condition, because they were satisfied that the Operational and Crowd Safety Management Plan (with which the applicant will be obliged to comply) deals appropriately with the deployment of security personnel.
- The police suggested that there should be a personal licence holder on every bar. The Sub-Committee heard from the Joby Andrews (Designated Premises Supervisor) that there would be four personal licence holders at the event, and that each bar would be managed by an experienced bar manager. The Sub-Committee did not consider it appropriate to include a condition requiring there to be a personal licence holder at each bar. The Sub-Committee considered that a condition requiring there to be a personal licence holder on site, and an experienced bar manager supervising each bar, was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives.
Attachment: Appendix 1 - Schedule
Date: 23 March 2016
Licensing Sub-Committee Chairman: Cllr S Clarke
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Decision notified to interested parties on 31 March 2016