Agenda item

The Director of Environmental Services submits a report on an application for a review of an existing premises licence, for F Bar, 95 Walnut Street, Leicester, LE2 7LA.

Report attached. A copy of the associated documentation is attached for Members only. Further copies are available on the Council’s website at www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk or by phoning Democratic Support on 454 6354.

The Director, Environmental Services, submitted a report that required Members to determine an application for a review of an existing premises licence for F Bar, 95 Walnut Street, Leicester, LE2 7LA.

Members noted that a representation had been received in respect of the application which necessitated that the application for a new premises licence had to be considered by Members.

Mr Jotinder Singh, representing the Premises Licence Holder (PLH), was present at the meeting. Mr Cyril Abadie and Mr Richard Wesson, Fire Safety Inspecting Officers, Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Services were present. The Licensing Team Manager and Solicitor to the hearing panel were also present.

The Licensing Team Manager presented the report. It was noted that the review application had been made by the fire authority on 26^th February 2014 on the grounds of public safety. Colour photographs of the exterior of the premises were circulated at the meeting.

The Fire Safety Inspecting Officers outlined the reasons for the review application and answered questions from Members:

·         A fire safety visit in August 2013 had found safety measures at the premises unsatisfactory, and the PLH had failed to comply as competent person with his duties under the current fire safety legislation, namely The Regulatory Reform(Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).

·         An Action Plan with a deadline was served on the PLH, informing him what measures he needed to undertake to comply with the issues outlined in the report. A person issued with an Action Plan should sign it and return it to the fire authority.

·         The deadline had passed, and the fire authority had received no contact from the PLH, and therefore, did not know if the action plan had been complied with. The action plan was upgraded to an Enforcement Notice, which had legal bearing.

·         The deadline given for the Enforcement Notice passed, and numerous attempts were made by the fire authority to contact the PLH with no success.

·         Fire Safety Inspecting Officers consulted with their line manager, and a decision was reached to make an application for a review of the premises licence.

·         With the agreement of the PLH, copies of correspondence from the fire authority to the PLH was circulated to the PLH firstly, and then to Members.

Mr Singh was then given the opportunity to present his submission during which he made the following points:

·         He accepted what the Fire Safety Inspectors had said.

·         When the fire safety visit was undertaken in August 2013, he had not been prepared.

·         Copies of completed documentation showing compliance with the Action Plan were returned in October 2013 and again in January 2014, he had done all that was required of him. He could not understand why the fire authority had not received the documents.

·         He had been unable to respond to telephone calls, as he did not open the premises until after 5.00pm each day, after office hours.

·         He had been unable to reply to emails. He apologised and said he should have made more effort to contact the fire authority to meet fire officers, and avoid the review hearing.

·         Melton Security had repaired the fire alarm and emergency lighting. He had no recollection of the fire system being faulty and it had not been brought to his attention.

·         Four core points in the premises were tested on a rotational basis every week, and this was documented.

·         A risk assessment had been undertaken by Mr Singh three days after the fire authority had visited, and no significant findings had been found. Fire escape routes were established and checked every day. There was no combustible waste, no naked flames and no sources of ignition in the premises, and the detection and alarm system was sufficient.

·         Emergency Plan training had been given to staff members on what to do in the event of a fire. Fire drills had not been undertaken but had been talked through.

·         He took very seriously the licensing objective of public safety, and steps had been taken to deal with issues quickly.

·         The premises was the first one the PLH had owned and managed.

·         In answer to a question from the Fire Safety Inspecting Officers, Mr Singh said electrical equipment portable appliance testing (PAT) had not been undertaken.

All parties were then given the opportunity to sum up and make any final comments.

The Fire Safety Inspecting Officers said they were concerned they were not able to verify work or documentation, as established in the Action Plan and later Enforcement Notice.

Mr Singh said a new meeting could be arranged between Fire Safety Inspecting Officers and himself so they would see what had been undertaken, and any action required. He accepted the review hearing would not have been necessary if he had made contact with the fire authority.

Prior to deliberation, the Solicitor to the hearing panel advised Members of options available to them in making a decision.

In reaching their decision, Members felt they should deliberate in private on the basis that this was in the public interest, and as such outweighed the public interest of their deliberation taking place with the parties represented present.

The Fire Safety Inspecting Officers, Licensing Team Manager, Solicitor to the hearing panel, and Mr Singh then withdrew from the meeting.

The Members then gave the application full and detailed consideration.

The Solicitor to the hearing panel was recalled to give advice to Members on the wording of their decision.

The Fire Safety Inspecting Officers, Licensing Team Manager, and Mr Singh then returned to the meeting.

The Chair informed all persons present that they had recalled the Solicitor to the hearing panel for advice on the wording of their decision.

RESOLVED:

that following the application for a review of an existing premises licence for F Bar, 95 Walnut Street, Leicester, LE2 7LA, the licence be suspended until such time that the fire authority (Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service) was satisfied that the licence holder was compliant with the Fire Authority’s regulations, and that Fire Authority compliance had been confirmed to the licensing authority in writing.

The Committee informed Mr Singh that the licence could not be suspended for more than three months, but it would be open for the fire authority and licensing authority to bring the premises back for a review.

The Committee said that based on the evidence they had heard, and that which had been presented to the Committee beforehand, Members needed further reassurances to be certain public safety would not be compromised in future.

The Committee Members considered all options put to them. They wished to make a decision which would put the onus on the premises licence holder to communicate with the fire authority, and believed they had done so. They said that whilst revocation of the licence was open to them, in light of what the licence holder had said he had done, they decided on this occasion to allow the opportunity for the fire authority to look again at the premises.

However, Members were very concerned about the complete absence of communication from the premises licence holder towards the fire authority, which in itself could be a reason to give the Committee concern, and required considerable improvement on the part of the licence holder.

Mr Singh was warned the decision was a ‘line in the sand’, and the Members expected full compliance from him with the fire authority.

Mr Singh was informed of the 21-day right of appeal period before the decision would come into effect.