application for review of premise licence elements 5

LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF PREMISE LICENCE ELEMENTS 5-9 SPREAD
EAGLE WALK, HIGH STREET, EPSOM, SURREY, KT19 8DN
Report of the:
Director of Operations
Contact:
Angela Slaughter
Annexes/Appendices (attached):
Annexe 1 - Application for the Review of Premises
Licence by Surrey Police
Annexe 2 - Representations from Interested
Parties; Mr Axelrod, Mr Hewlett, Councillor Neil
Dallen, petitions from Hudson House and Capitol
Square*
Annexe 3 - Premises Licence
Annexe 4 - Location map
Annexe 5 – Table of closing hours of Epsom town
centre premises
*Please note: petitions are only available for
inspection at Epsom Town Hall, not on the
Council’s website.
Other available papers (not attached):
Code of Conduct and Practice in Licensing
Procedures and Hearings
Statement of Licensing Policy
Licensing Act 2003
Amended Guidance Issued under Section 182 of
the Licensing Act 2003
REPORT SUMMARY
The Sub-Committee is asked to consider the Review of the Licence for Elements, 5-9
Spread Eagle Walk under the Licensing Act 2003 by way of requesting that the terminal
hour for trading be reduced and to amend conditions; to reduce the likelihood of
incidents of crime and disorder occurring after 01.30 hours.
1
Background
1.1
On 1 March 2010 Chicago Rock Café, 5-9 Spread Eagle Walk went into
administration and the premises closed. An Interim Authority Notice was submitted
to Epsom and Ewell Borough Council as Chicago Rock Cafe had lapsed due to
insolvency of the licence holder.
Page 1 of 5
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
2
ITEM 02
1.2
A new application for a premises licence was received on 1st June 2010 for the
premises known as Chicago Rock Café. It was an identical licence to the previous
licence. The premises was rebranded as “Elements”. A Licensing Hearings SubCommittee was held on the 19th July 2010. Police put in a representation under
the licensing objective of crime and disorder. The Committee’s decision was to grant
the application subject to the following conditions: to licence the premises until
03.00 hours on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, Bank Holidays and Public
Holidays and 02.00 hours on all other days; the DJ to be instructed (rather than
advised) to play slower music and reduce the volume of the music played for the
last 20 minutes of trading; and various conditions detailed within the application and
alcohol related crime and disorder reduction agreement made with applicant.
1.3
A Variation application was received on 13 October 2010 to approve internal
alterations to the premises. This was approved under Delegated Authority on 2
November 2010.
1.4
A Review application was submitted by Surrey Police on 1 February 2011 to remove
the Designated Premises Supervisor and to add and amend conditions to the
licence. The Hearing was held on 15th March 2011. The Sub-Committee’s decision
was to agree all the conditions set out in the Review application with some minor
changes which were agreed by Surrey Police and the Licence Holder.
1.5
A Minor Variation application was submitted on the 3rd February 2011 to amend
conditions. The Authority refused the application as it considered that the minor
variation had an adverse impact on the licensing objective of Crime and Disorder
and a Review application was still in place from Surrey Police.
Current Position
2.1
The premises’ current licensing hours are as follows;
Supply of Alcohol by Retail and Provision of Regulated Entertainment
Thursday to Saturday 08:00 hours until 03:00 hours including Public and Bank
Holidays.
Sunday to Wednesday 08:00 hours until 02:00 hours.
Late Night Refreshment
Thursday to Saturday 08:00 hours until 03:00 hours including Bank Holidays and
Public Holidays.
Sunday to Wednesday 08:00 hours until 02:00 hours.
The premises also have the additional hour to the standard and non-standard times
on the day when British Summertime commences. New Years Eve, from the end of
permitted hours on New Years Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Years Day.
(no restriction on recorded music) In the event of a screening of any international
sporting event involving any of the Countries from the UK and Eire which falls
outside the current permitted hours, from one hour before the start of the event until
one hour after the event. Details to be notified to the Police 7 days beforehand and
provided the Police have not objected with 72 hours of being notified.
2.2
The premises opening hours are as follows;
Page 2 of 5
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
Thursday to Saturday 08.00 Hours until 03.30 hours including public and bank
holidays.
Sunday to Wednesday 08.00 hours until 02.30 hours. For consumption on and off
the premises.
3
Introduction
3.1
On 27 January 2012, an application for the Review of a Premises Licence for
Elements 5-9 Spread Eagle Walk, High Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8DN was
submitted by Surrey Police (see Annexe 1).
3.2
The purpose of this Review Application is to request that the terminal hour for
trading be reduced to 01.30 hours, to amend certain conditions with the intention
that the reduction of hours and amendments of conditions will reduce the likelihood
of similar incidents occurring in the future.
For clarification, Surrey Police state in the Review application that the terminal hour
for trading be reduced to 01.30 hours. This is for every day, with alcohol sales to
cease trading at 01.30 hours and a closing time of 02.00 hours.
3.3
4
Representations from Interested Parties
4.1
5
A visit to the premises by Members of the Licensing Hearings Sub-Committee and a
Licensing Officer will be held on Monday 12 March 2012.
Representations have been received from interested parties; Mr Axelrod, Mr
Hewlett, Councillor Neil Dallen and petitions from Hudson House and Capitol House
(Annexe 2).
Representations from Responsible Authorities
5.1
This Review Hearing follows the decision by Surrey Police to apply for a Review
Application.
5.2
Surrey Fire and Rescue Service has not made any representations to this
application.
5.3
The Planning Authority has not submitted any representations to this application but
have made the following comment;
There is still a pending planning application on the use of this premise as a club venue,
rather than its permitted use as a restaurant/café with an ancillary nightclub element,
indicating an original lesser intensity of use.
The planning application, 10/00582/COU, proposed to open until 02.30 hours from Sundays
through to Wednesdays and 03.30 hours on Thursdays and Saturdays.
Page 3 of 5
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
These proposed hours of use raise significant concerns in terms of planning considerations,
relating to residential neighbour amenity and impact, and so planning officers have been
trying to negotiate reduced hours of use which we consider will be more suitable to the
location, considering the increase of residential properties in the vicinity, the use of the rear
yard as a smoking area, and the potential for use of the premises seven days a week
throughout the year, leading to an intensive form of use.
As part of the planning conditions on this site, we would like to see the opening times
reduced to the following;
 Mondays to Saturdays – drinking up time until 02.30 hours – closing time to the public
02.00 hours
 Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays; drink up time until 01.30 hours – closing
time to the public 01.00 hours
 Smoking area to be closed one hour before closing time.
The planning application remains outstanding and so the premises is currently operating
outside of any planning consent.
6
5.4
Surrey Children's Service has not submitted any representations to this application.
5.5
Trading Standards has not made any representations to this application.
5.6
The Environmental Health Service has not submitted any representations to this
application
Policy Considerations
6.1
7
The Statement of Licensing Policy was adopted by the Council and became
effective on 7 January 2005, revised January 2008 and subsequently revised and
effective on the 7 January 2011. A copy of the Policy has been distributed to all
parties. There are no Policy presumptions against the grant of the application,
however, Members will need to have due regard to the representations submitted.
Members will also need to have due regard to the Guidance issued under Section
182 of the Licensing Act 2003.
Conclusions
7.1
The Committee is asked to consider the Review of the Premises Licence under the
Licensing Act 2003. Under the Act the following are the options available:
Attach conditions to the licence

Modify the conditions of the licence

Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence

Remove the designated premises supervisor

Suspend the licence of a period not exceeding 3 months

Revoke the licence
Page 4 of 5
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012

ITEM 02
To take no action
WARD(S) AFFECTED: Town
Page 5 of 5
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ANNEXE 1 - APPLICATION
FOR THE REVIEW OF
PREMISES LICENCE BY
SURREY POLICE
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 1
RESTRICTED
Report: RESTRICTED
Created by Licensing Officer 7675 Dave Hodges
Version: 1 Date: 18/06/2010
Introduction and Methodology
On 1st March 2010 Chicago Rock Café in Epsom town centre went into
administration and was closed and has remained closed until the present date
(18th June 2010)
In order to examine the effects of this closure on alcohol related crime and
incidents, this report compares three periods of time; the 3 month period prior to
the closure, the 3 month period of closure and then a comparison to the same 6
months of the previous year.
Data has been extracted from the Police Inn Keeper data-base and from the
Traffic Light Scheme for the geographical neighbourhood area of Epsom &
Ewell Central. Please note that only data from premises licensed to sell both on
and off the premises have been targeted in the search to isolate “Off Licences”.
Data on Inn Keeper is only recorded when it can be specifically associated
directly with a premises, hence general disorder within the town centre is not
included.
Traffic Light Scheme.
1) For the period 01/12/2009 to 28/02/2010 (three months prior to closure)





Points added to premises on a monthly basis:December 2009 = 9.
January 2010 = 2.
February = 8.
Total = 19..
2) For the period 01/03/2010 to 31/05/2010 (period closed)





Points added to premises on a monthly basis.
March 2010 = 0.
April 2010 = 3
May 2010 = 0.
Total = 3
RESTRICTED
1
RESTRICTED
Traffic Light Scheme contd.
3) For the period 01/12/2008 to 31/05/2009 (6 month comparison)









Points added to premises on a monthly basis.
December 2008 = 9.
January 2009 = 0.
February 2009 = 8
Total = 17
March 2009 = 5.
April 2009 = 8.
May 2009 = 7.
Total = 20
Incidents recorded relating to Town Centre Premises
1) For the period 01/12/2009 to 28/02/2010 (three months prior to closure)




December 2009 = 38
January 2010 = 29
February 2010 = 25
Total = 92.
(34 associated with Chicago Rock Café CRC)
2) For the period 01/03/2010 to 31/05/2010 (period closed)




March 2010 = 15
April 2010 = 19
May 2010 = 22
Total = 56
3) For the period 01/12/2008 to 31/05/2009 (6 month comparison)








December 2008 = 26.
January 2009 = 17.
February 2009 = 20.
Total = 63
(18 of which associated with CRC)
March 2009 = 24
April 2009 = 31
May 2009 = 33
Total = 88. (30 of which associated with CRC)
RESTRICTED
2
RESTRICTED
Conclusion
The data identifies that the seasonal comparison between December 2008 –
February 2009 (17 points) and December 2009 – February 2010 (19 points) for
the traffic light scheme is comparable. However there was an increase in
incidents recorded in relation to the two periods, 63 – 92 indicating an escalation
of alcohol related problems. Both of the above indicators suggest that the
figures for the two periods should be at least comparable, or that more recently
alcohol problems have escalated.
Therefore comparing the period while Chicago Rock Café was closed the data
identifies the following:For the 3 months prior to closure (01/12/2009 – 28/02/2010) when compared
with the 3 month closure period (01/03/2010 – 31/05/2010) a reduction of 84%
in points was recorded via the traffic light scheme, and a reduction 39% in
incidents.
For the 3 months seasonal comparison (01/03/2009 – 31/05/2009) when
compared with the closure period (01/03/2010 – 31/05/2010) a reduction of 85%
in points was recorded via the traffic light scheme, and a reduction of 36% in
incidents.
Chicago Rock Café regularly features in the “County Top Ten” on Inn Keeper for
incidents recorded in relation to licensed premises. For the year preceding
closure (01/03/2009 – 28/02/2010) Chicago Rock Café was second in the
“County Top Ten”. In addition many of the premises listed are of much larger
capacities.
The data has identified that Chicago Rock Café has been responsible for
over one third of all incidents relating to licensed premises with in Epsom
town centre. In addition the number of incidents directly linked to the
premises is not proportional to its size when compared to other similar
venues within the County of Surrey.
This document was correct at the time of printing.
Any additional information obtained as part of enquiries or research should be forwarded to
the author of this report as soon as possible.
RESTRICTED
3
Start Date: 01/03/09
End Date: 28/02/10
Force Area: All
Premises Type: All
1
DUSK (TIME) (4 - 6 NORTH STREET, GUILDFORD, GU1 4AA), PID 263, URN GD100
156
2
CHICAGO ROCK CAFE (CHICAGO ROCK CAFE, 5-9 SPREAD EAGLE WALK, EPSOM, KT19 8DN), PID 1,906, URN EP36
112
3
LIQUID & ENVY (STATION ROAD, REDHILL, RH1 1NZ), PID 2,848, URN RB224
100
4
RSVP (RSVP, 43-47 CHERTSEY ROAD, WOKING, WOKING, GU21 5AJ), PID 2,374, URN WK17
90
5
HARPERS / VOODOO/CASINO (ONSLOW STREET, GUILDFORD, GU1 4SQ), PID 161, URN GD60
80
6
CHAMELEON (CHAMELEON, CROWN SQUARE, WOKING, WOKING, GU21 6HR), PID 3,403, URN WK254
79
7
TRU (ENVY) (TRU, 52 HIGH STREET, CAMBERLEY TOWN, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3RS), PID 368, URN SH80
75
8
QUE PASA (TILLYS LANE WEST, TWO RIVERS, STAINES, TW18 4BL), PID 938, URN SP3
72
9
J J WHISPERS (39-41, CHURCH STREET, REIGATE, RH2 0AD), PID 852, URN RB95
62
NICHE BAR (169 HIGH STREET, STAINES, TW18 4PA), PID 1,811, URN SP127
55
10
21/06/2010
Page 1 of 1
Start Date: 01/03/09
End Date: 28/02/10 Force Area: EP
Premises Type: All
1
CHICAGO ROCK CAFE (CHICAGO ROCK CAFE, 5-9 SPREAD EAGLE WALK, EPSOM, KT19 8DN), PID 1,906, URN EP36
2
BOOGIE LOUNGE (BOOGIE LOUNGE , 1A WATERLOO ROAD, EPSOM, KT19 8AY), PID 1,893, URN EP23
54
3
CEVANS (WAS LAVANDA CAFE) (CEVAN'S, 76 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8BA), PID 2,156, URN EP77
46
4
ALBION THE (ALBION THE, 134 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8BT), PID 312, URN EP2
37
5
ASSEMBLY ROOMS (WETHERSPOONS) (ASSEMBLY ROOMS (WETHERSPOONS), 147-153 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8E
28
6
NATIVE TONGUE (NATIVE TONGUE, 93 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8DR), PID 4,279, URN EP201
26
7
ORGAN AND DRAGON (ORGAN AND DRAGON, 65 LONDON ROAD, EWELL, EPSOM, KT17 2BL), PID 283, URN EP1
24
8
STAR, THE (THE STAR, 2 CHEAM ROAD, EWELL, EPSOM, KT 17 1S), PID 3,915, URN EP156
21
9
CO-OP WELCOME (CO-OP WELCOME, 330-332 KINGSTON ROAD, EWELL, KT17 0SU), PID 4,295, URN EP210
21
10
MARQUIS OF GRANBY (MARQUIS OF GRANBY, 4 WEST STREET, EPSOM, KT18 7RG), PID 2,162, URN EP83
18
29/06/2010
112
Page 1 of 1
Start Date: 01/01/11
End Date: 31/12/11 Force Area: All
Premises Type: NIGHT CLUB
1
FOREST & OCEAN (13 - 15 HIGH STREET, STAINES, TW18 4QY), PID 1,769, URN SP86
107
2
ELEMENTS (WAS CHICAGO ROCK CAFE) (ELEMENTS (WAS CHICAGO'S), 5-9 SPREAD EAGLE WALK, EPSOM, KT19 8DN),
101
3
CASINO / PLAYERS LOUNGE (HARPERS) (CASINO / PLAYERS LOUNGE (HARPE, ONSLOW STREET, GUILDFORD, GU1 4SQ
99
4
DUSK (TIME) (4 - 6 NORTH STREET, GUILDFORD, GU1 4AA), PID 263, URN GD100
85
5
TRU (ENVY) (TRU, 52 HIGH STREET, CAMBERLEY TOWN, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3RS), PID 368, URN SH80
77
6
RSVP (RSVP, 43-47 CHERTSEY ROAD, WOKING, WOKING, GU21 5AJ), PID 2,374, URN WK17
72
7
J J WHISPERS (39-41, CHURCH STREET, REIGATE, RH2 0AD), PID 852, URN RB95
58
8
LLOYDS NO. 1 (RODBORO BUILDINGS, 1 - 10 BRIDGE STREET, GUILDFORD, GU1 1PG), PID 182, URN GD70
55
9
CHAMELEON (CHAMELEON, CROWN SQUARE, WOKING, WOKING, GU21 6HR), PID 3,403, URN WK254
55
10
BOOGIE LOUNGE (BOOGIE LOUNGE , 1A WATERLOO ROAD, EPSOM, KT19 8AY), PID 1,893, URN EP23
52
11
BED BAR (BED, 3 CHURCH PATH, WOKING, WOKING, GU21 1EL), PID 3,404, URN WK255
52
23/01/2012
Page 1 of 1
Start Date: 01/01/11
End Date: 31/12/11 Force Area: EP
Premises Type: All
1
ELEMENTS (WAS CHICAGO ROCK CAFE) (ELEMENTS (WAS CHICAGO'S), 5-9 SPREAD EAGLE WALK, EPSOM, KT19 8DN),
101
2
EPSOM DOWNS (RACECOURSE AREA) (EPSOM DOWNS (RACECOURSE AREA), EPSOM DOWNS, EPSOM, KT18 5LQ), PID
59
3
BOOGIE LOUNGE (BOOGIE LOUNGE , 1A WATERLOO ROAD, EPSOM, KT19 8AY), PID 1,893, URN EP23
52
4
STATION INN (WAS THE STONELEIGH INN) (STATION INN , THE BROADWAY, STONELEIGH, EPSOM, KT17 2JA), PID 2,204
25
5
MCCOLLS (MCCOLLS, 166-170 RUXLEY LANE, WEST EWELL, EPSOM, KT19 9HA), PID 2,163, URN EP84
23
6
EIGHT BELLS (EIGHT BELLS, 78 KINGSTON ROAD, EWELL, EPSOM, KT17 2DU), PID 1,918, URN EP48
20
7
NATIVE TONGUE (NATIVE TONGUE, 93 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8DR), PID 4,279, URN EP201
20
8
ALBION THE (ALBION THE, 134 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8BT), PID 312, URN EP2
19
9
ASSEMBLY ROOMS (WETHERSPOONS) (ASSEMBLY ROOMS (WETHERSPOONS), 147-153 HIGH STREET, EPSOM, KT19 8E
18
BEER SELLER (BEER SELLER, 84 CHESSINGTON ROAD, WEST EWELL, KT19 9UR), PID 4,289, URN EP206
18
10
23/01/2012
Page 1 of 1
Surrey Top 10 Night Clubs by incident, associated data
Premises
Name
Premises
Capacity
No of
Door
Staff
Drugs Seizures by Door
Staff Recorded
1
Forest &
Ocean
460
2
0
2
Elements
500
6
24
3
Harpers
1400
10 - 12
0
4
Dusk
700
8 - 10
1
5
Tru
750
2 + 1 per
100
30
6
RSVP
275
2
9
7
JJ Whispers
200
6
0
8
Lloyds No1
1200
8 -12
0
9
Chameleon
548
8
0
10
Boogie
Lounge
293
4
8
11
Bed Bar
300
7
1
Incident Type Statistics
Start Date: 01/01/11
Code
23/01/2012
End Date: 31/12/11
Force Area: EP
Description
Premises Type: ELEMENTS
Number
1 0007
CRIME - ASSAULT - ABH or less
32
2 0011
DRUGS
24
3 0036
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON
10
4 0032
ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
9
5 0014
DRUNK - DISORDERLY
7
6 0022
PUBLIC ORDER
7
7 0020
OTHER
5
8 0003
CRIME - THEFT
2
9 0013
LICENSING - UNDER AGE
2
10 0019
LICENSING - OFFENCE - OTHER
2
11 ----
None
1
12 0006
CRIME - ASSAULT - GBH or greater
1
13 0016
DRUNK - REFUSING TO QUIT
1
14 0017
NOISE
1
15 0030
LICENSING-BREACH OF CONDITIONS
1
Page 1 of 1
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 2
ANNEXE 2 REPRESENTATIONS FROM
INTERESTED PARTIES:
PART A: MR AXELROD
PART B: MR HEWLETT
PART C: COUNCILLOR NEIL DALLEN
PART D: PETITION FROM HUDSON HOUSE
(NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE, BUT MAY BE VIEWED
AT EPSOM TOWN HALL)
PART E: PETITION FROM CAPITOL SQUARE
(NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE, BUT MAY BE VIEWED
AT EPSOM TOWN HALL)
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 2
ANNEXE 2 REPRESENTATIONS FROM
INTERESTED PARTIES:
PART A: MR AXELROD:
 Email from Mr Axelrod
 Crime and ASB information December
2010 – December 2011
 Crime and Disorder reduction
Partnership 2009/10 annual report
 Licensing Committee Minutes
07/02/2011
 Licensing Committee Minutes
03/10/2011
 Adoption of CSTAP for Epsom Town
Centre report
From: Tony Axelrod
Sent: 12 February 2012 16:09
To: Licensing
Cc: Nicholas Tapping; Neil Dallen; Alison Kelly; Ian Booker;
[email protected]
Subject: Review of Premises Licence - Elements 5 - 9 Spread Eagle Walk
Dear Sirs I wish to make representations at the forthcoming review of the license relating to Elements, 5 ‐ 9 Spread Eagle Walk (the premises). On the 30th June 2010, I raised objections to the original licensing application and I attended the subsequent hearing. I continue to live at Hudson House and as Chairman of the management company for such development. My representations raised in June 2010 remain as valid now as they were then. On the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder the premises has continued to operate with a poor record, as is evidenced by the current application of Surrey Police. Since crime statistics have been made public (Dec 2010), Epsom town centre has month by month been rated “above average” for the number of crimes per 1000 population, putting it in the top 16% of the country. For December 2011, the last month where figures are currently available the rate was 30.70, with the total number of recorded crimes being 291 of which 142 were of anti‐social behaviour and 24 of violent crime. For November 2011 the total number of recorded crimes was 316 of which 135 were anti‐social behaviour and 29 of violent crime. I attach as Appendices numbered 1 to 13, copies of the crime figures for Epsom town centre, from December 2010 to December 2011 inclusive. On the grounds of prevention of public nuisance myself and my family are regularly woken up at times between 3am and 4.00am on weekend mornings and between 2am and 3.00 am during weekdays, when late night clubs are operating. Fights and disruption on the streets leading from the location of the premises, combined with anti‐social behaviour and public nuisance in the nature of shouting and screaming with the police attending are commonplace and at times when only Elements and one other small club is operating in the town centre and/or dispersing. The number of persons involved in the incidents strongly indicates that they have dispersed from the premises. The crime figures, combined with the close proximity of a substantial number of residential homes within the town centre, points to a substantial cumulative impact that requires management and control and which is clearly lacking in respect of the premises. The most recent example of the type of public nuisance that residents endure was one that took place on Saturday the 21st January 2012 between 3.15am and 4am involving a fight in the Waterloo Road by Hudson House and the Oaks Square, with some 5 police cars attending. Due to the time and number of persons involved this strongly indicates that those involved were dispersing from the premises. I assume that the police can confirm the position in this regard. I would wish to exhibit a video and sound clip that I took of this incident as appendix 14. This was taken during the latter part of the incident. On Saturday the 8th October 2011 from 3am to about 3.45am fights broke out between about 30 to 40 youths who initially congregated outside Elements on dispersal from there, with the street level noise rising and rising. They were at times spread across the road at the junction of Waterloo Road and High Street and it was left to a number of police cars to re‐act. I would wish to exhibit a video and sound clip that I took of this incident as appendix 15. The fact that there is a serious problem in Epsom town centre that needs to be addressed and the affect of cumulative impact is well known to the Licensing Committee and is on record. Local residents have been at the forefront of pressing for control and management and seeking an improvement in their quality of life and have attended police panel meetings and convened many meetings themselves with licensed premises managers and their ward councillors. At many of such meetings directors of the management companies and/or managing agents relating to Capitol Square, Hudson House, The Oaks Square, Chelsea Court, Marquis Court and Central Walk have attended, all seeking better management and control of the town centre night time economy and to reduce public nuisance, street crime and anti social behaviour. There have been many statements from and reports issued by and to the Council that action is needed, some of which are:‐ Epsom and Ewell Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership report 2009/10 presented to the Crime and Disorder Committee on the 10th June 2010 – Appendix 15. I would specifically refer to paragraph 9.1.2.3. On the 7th February 2011 the Licensing Committee unanimously resolved that “Epsom Town Centre was already saturated with licensed premises and that this concentration impacted on the area, creating public nuisance, crime and disorder and that a Cumulative Impact Policy was required”. A copy of the minutes of such meeting is at Appendix 16. On the 3rd October 2011 the Licensing Committee came to the conclusion that a zoning policy should in the first instance be considered. A copy of the minutes of such meeting is at Appendix 17. On the 25th January 2012 the Environment Committee of the Council resolved to set up a Community Safety Targeted Action Plan for the town centre. The report to the committee at paragraph 3.1 ‐ Appendix 18 stating “The only geographical area in the Borough currently being discussed by the JAG which would benefit from a CSTAP is the Town Centre. There are concerns regarding the levels of alcohol related crime and disorder and noise issues related to the night time economy. The area has the highest amount of recorded crime in the Borough, with much of this attributed to the large amount of businesses and licensed premises. As a Town Centre, Epsom ranks amongst the highest areas for alcohol related disorder and nuisance in the County and as such is under routine scrutiny…….. During this 8 month period (1st January 2011 to 31st August 2011), there were 207 violence against the person offences reported to Surrey Police. Nearly half (48.8%) of these offences were flagged as being alcohol related, and around three quarters (75.4%) were flagged as having occurred in a public place, indicating that most violent offences occurred in public places such as streets, pubs and bars….. With an increasing number of residential properties being developed close to licensed premises, there is a risk that greater numbers of residents are being subjected to disturbance from licensed premises.” As evidenced by the crime statistics exhibited and notwithstanding the above, no measurable improvement has been achieved to the level of street crime and public nuisance. Epsom town centre has now become a residential area, where liquor licensing to 3am with a substantial number of people dispersing thereafter with no element of public transport and little if any control has no reasonable place. Epsom town centre cannot be compared to city centres or major towns such as Guildford, or Kingston. It is a small market town where over recent years much residential development has taken place in the centre, following the policy of the Council with considerably more residential development taking place at this time and in contemplation. The residential developments that have been completed over recent years and are in full residential occupation include:‐ Chelsea Court – 14 flats located opposite the premises Capitol Square – 152 flats located in close proximity to the premises and being on one of dispersal routes. Hudson House – 111 flats as with Capitol Square but located even closer to the premises. The Oaks Square – 37 flats in a similar location to the premises as Hudson House. Central Walk – 64 flats next to Hudson House Marquis Court – 16 flats next to Central Walk In addition there is presently being developed for occupation this year the following residential blocks:‐ Epsom Station development, located directly opposite Hudson House providing 117 residential flats and a 64 bedroom hotel The Old Court house development, located next to Chelsea Court providing 46 residential flats. At the hearing when this licence was granted, to meet the opposition of Surrey Police, Councillor Dallen one of our Town Ward councillors and town centre residents, great play was made by the applicant that Elements would be a very different type of premises to its predecessor Chicagos and that a very different type of clientele would be attracted to it. It was claimed the premises would be run as a much more higher class venue, with strict control and management being in place. It was also claimed that measures would be taken which would minimise noise and disruption to those living nearby and on dispersal routes, such as having orderly queues for taxis within the premises and the ability to call them, supervised by door staff and that the implementation of a night bus service would be pursued and paid for. It was claimed that the incidence of crime, anti‐social behaviour and noise nuisance that had been the hallmark of Chicagos, would not be so with Elements. Regretfully the reality has been very different It would be very wrong to suggest that Elements are responsible for all crime and disorder in Epsom Town centre, however it is submitted that the size of the premises and the hours permitted under the licence presently held, combined with the manner in which it operates has the dominant affect on cumulative impact, both in relation to offences and public noise nuisance that affects myself and many town centre residents, particularly at times of dispersal. A fair and reasonable balance must be struck between the commercial interests of the premises and the interests of the many town centre residents. It is submitted that a reduction of operating hours in respect of the premises, will go some way to secure a better quality of life for town centre residents, which on any view they should reasonably enjoy. As with these matters the position can and will no doubt be kept under review. I therefore respectfully request that the permitted hours for the premises be reduced to 1.30am on Fridays and Saturdays and bank holidays and 12 midnight on all other days. Such steps will lead to the streets of Epsom Town centre being substantially cleared by 2.30am over weekends and 1am weekdays, which it is submitted is appropriate for a town of the size and current demographics of Epsom. TONY AXELROD Hudson House, Station Approach, Epsom, Surrey CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
CRIME AND DISORDER REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP – 2009/10 ANNUAL REPORT
Report of the:
Community Safety Officer
Contact:
Katrina Best
Annexes/Appendices (attached):
Annexe 1 - Community Safety Partnership Plan
2009/10
Annexe 2 – 2009/10 Budget
Annexe 3 – Local Area Agreement priorities for
2010/11
Annexe 4 - Community Safety Partnership Plan
2010/11
Annexe 5 – 2010/11 Budget
Other available papers (not attached):
2009 Strategic Assessment
2009 Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Residents’
Survey
REPORT SUMMARY
This report informs the Committee of the work of the Epsom & Ewell Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnership (CDRP) over the 2009/10 period, and of its plans for 2010/11.
Notes
RECOMMENDATION (S)
The Committee is asked to:
(1)
Note and comment on the work and expenditure of the
CDRP over the 2009/10 period
(2)
Note and comment on the priorities, plans and budget of
the CDRP for the 2010/11 period.
1
Implications for the Council’s Key Priorities and Community Strategy
1.1
2
The issues contained in this report are fundamental in tackling crime and anti-social
behaviour in the Borough.
Implications for the Committee’s Key Service Priorities
2.1
Some of the Key Service Priority Targets for the Council's own Policy Committees
reflect the priorities and work of the CDRP, e.g. those relating to Anti Social
Behaviour.
Page 1 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
2.2
3
ITEM 02
This Committee has the responsibility to oversee matters relating to the work of the
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership.
Background
3.1
Provisions within the Police and Justice Act 2006 to put in place a Crime and
Disorder Committee in each local authority came into place on 30th April 2009,
including Councillor Call for Action.
3.2
Responsibilities include the power to:
3.2.1 Review or scrutinise the decisions made, or other action taken, in connection
with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder
functions;
3.2.2 Make reports or recommendations to the local authority with respect to the
discharge of those functions.
4
3.3
Epsom & Ewell established an informal Crime and Disorder Committee which met in
July 2008.
3.4
A formal committee was established following the agreement of Terms of reference
by Council on 28th April 2009.
3.5
The first formal committee met on 12th October 2009 where it was agreed that two
Committee meetings would be held per year (around June/July and
November/December time) to look at mid-year and end of year performance
management reports.
Review of 2009/10
4.1
The Strategic Assessment is a document produced each year by the CDRP
‘Strategy Group’ which is made up of representatives from Epsom & Ewell Borough
Council, Surrey County Council and Surrey Police. The Strategic Assessment
identifies the Community Safety priorities for the coming year. Following on from this
the CDRP agrees an annual Partnership Action Plan and the budget for the year.
4.2
Major achievements in 2009/10 have been:
4.2.1 Criminal damage (down 10%)
4.2.2 Robbery (down 33%)
4.2.3 Vehicle interference and tampering (down 35%)
Page 2 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
4.2.4 Improved Residents’ perception – 2009 Resident’s survey shows that 99% of
respondents feel safe during the day and 84% after dark (this compares with
99% and 79% respectively in 2007). When asked whether they felt that
levels of anti social behaviour had increased over the year, only 16% of
residents felt that it had, compared with 27% in 2007.
5
Community Safety priorities for 2009/10
5.1
The Community Safety priorities for 2009/10 were:
5.1.1 Bogus Callers
5.1.2 Youth on Youth robbery
5.1.3 Anti-Social Behaviour (including graffiti and the anti social use of motorcycles)
5.1.4 Parking
5.1.5 Litter
5.1.6 Street Lighting
6
Outcomes
6.1
Bogus Callers/Distraction Burglary
Whilst figures for Distraction Burglary have dropped from 13 to 5 over the last year,
analysis carried out in 2009 has highlighted a discrepancy in the way in which
Distraction Burglary offences are recorded on the crime system. Therefore a true
year on year comparison is not currently possible. It is inferred by intelligence that
Distraction Burglaries are still prevalent across the Division, and have not
decreased by the amount the data suggests. There are concerns about the long
term impact on elderly victims of Distraction Burglary.
In conjunction with Distraction Burglaries, rogue traders are still a significant issue
impacting on vulnerable and elderly residents in Epsom & Ewell.
Bogus callers and Distraction Burglary will continue to be a priority for 2010/11.
6.2
Youth on Youth Robberies
Police statistics show a drop in figures of around 55% (from 9 to 4). In addition,
there has been a drop in the number of incidents of youths with knives. Youth on
Youth Robberies will therefore cease to be a priority for 2010/11.
6.3
Youth ASB (including the anti social use of motor cycles)
According to police figures, there has been a reduction of around 20% in criminal
damage committed by the under 18s (from 71 to 57), and graffiti crimes have fallen
by around 60% (from 71 to 29). The past year has also seen a reduction in
motorcycle nuisance.
Page 3 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
Resident’s surveys show that perception/experience of anti social behaviour has
improved. This is reflected in both the 2008 Place Survey and the 2009 Citizens’
Panel Survey. However, teenagers hanging around on the streets, vandalism and
damage are still the main Community Safety issues for residents. This is also
highlighted in Community Impact feedback, Neighbourhood Panel priorities and
Councillors’ concerns.
Tackling Anti Social behaviour is a key priority for Epsom & Ewell Borough Council,
and an area of focus of the Surrey Local Area Agreement.
Anti Social Behaviour (focusing specifically on interventions with youths) will
continue to be a priority for 2010/11.
6.4
Parking
Parking continues to be an issue for residents. This is shown through Councillor
and Police feedback and Neighbourhood Panel priorities. Issues range from
parking on yellow lines to obstruction, to perceived offences such as parking on the
verge or pavements.
Whilst there is work underway to tackle the problem in a more joined up way
through discussions around a Borough Parking Strategy, inconsiderate parking
issues will be addressed as part of the County’s Park SMART campaign. This
initiative aims to reduce accidents, improve the flow of traffic and limit the damage to
the environment caused by congestion.
Illegal and inconsiderate parking, or ‘anti social parking’ will become a priority for
2010/11.
6.5
Rubbish/Litter
The problem of Rubbish/Litter is no longer highlighted as a main concern for the
community. The 2008 Place survey results show that only 16% of respondents are
dissatisfied with the council’s performance in terms of keeping public land clear of
litter and refuse. 67% of residents are satisfied with the Council’s performance in
terms of keeping public land clear of litter and refuse. It will no longer be a
Community Safety priority for the coming year, but will continue to be dealt with by
the appropriate teams at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and Rosebery Housing.
6.6
Street Lighting
Whilst the need for improved Street Lighting is ongoing, and has been highlighted
by members of the public through Neighbourhood Panels and via Councillors, it will
no longer remain a Community Safety priority for 2010/11. There is limited action
with which partners can take to resolve the issue until it is addressed by the Surrey
County Council PFI initiative.
7
2009/10 Partnership Plan
7.1
An Action Plan was produced for each priority, forming a Partnership Plan. The end
of year progress against the 2009/10 Partnership Plan is attached at Annexe 1.
7.2
Successes of the 2009/10 Partnership Plan include:
Page 4 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
7.2.1 The setting up of a No Cold Calling Zone in College ward;
7.2.2 The production of Community Safety Handbook for all residents in the
Borough;
7.2.3 Work with Schools, including the Safer Schools initiative at Blenheim, ASB
workbooks at Epsom & Ewell High School, Police engagement through
School surgeries and Panel work, and youth diversionary activities;
7.2.4 Anti graffiti campaigns such as Name that Tag and a Street Art project;
7.2.5 A Borough-wide Mentor Scheme for those at risk of offending.
7.3
8
9
A priority which proved to be more difficult to tackle was improving issues regarding
street lighting.
2009/10 Budget
8.1
The Area Based Grant (formerly the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund), the
Basic Command Unit Fund and the Partnership Fund are the sources of funding for
Community Safety. The Area Based Grant comes from the Home Office via the
Safer and Stronger Communities Partnership Board, the Basic Command Unit Fund
comes via the Police, and the Partnership Fund is made up of contributions for
EEBC, SCC and Surrey Police.
8.2
Annexe 2 shows the expenditure of the CDRP over the 2009/10 period.
Plans for 2010/11
9.1
Taking into account local crime statistics and data, resident’s priorities and
perceptions through the Strategic Assessment process, and related County priorities
(Annexe 3) CDRP’s agreed priority areas for 2010/11 are as follows:
9.1.1 Continuing priorities:
9.1.1.1Bogus Callers/Distraction Burglary;
9.1.1.2Anti-social behaviour (focusing on interventions with youths)
9.1.2 Emerging priorities:
9.1.2.1Theft from Vehicles (focusing on theft of personal possessions
and number plates from motor vehicles): The theft of personal
items from vehicles has significantly increased over the last 2 years.
Vehicles are often left unlocked, and possessions left on display.
These are a key target for offenders, and can easily be sold on. The
previous trend of these offences coupled with the recent increases
indicates that this type of acquisitive crime is likely to be a continuing
threat for the Borough in the forthcoming period.
Page 5 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
The past year has seen a significant increase in theft of number
plates from vehicles in the borough of Epsom & Ewell (+129%). Theft
of Number plate offences will pose a continued threat to the Borough
for the forthcoming period.
Theft from Motor Vehicle offences for portable electronic equipment
and number plates, are also a Police concern, and are a
consideration for the Police Control Strategy for the coming year.
9.1.2.2Anti social use of motor vehicles (including anti-social driving
and parking issues): In addition to issues surrounding inconsiderate
parking, anti social driving has been identified as a concern by
residents through feedback from Councillors and the police. Police
statistics show an increase of 20% (from 481 to 577) in incidents
relating to nuisance vehicles in the borough. Anti social use of motor
vehicles is also a County-wide priority. As a result of concerns raised
at Neighbourhood Panels around Surrey, a Drive SMART campaign
has been launched which aims to educated drivers on how to keep
Surrey’s roads safe and crack down on people who drive in a selfish
manner. The issue will become a priority for the borough in 2010/11.
9.1.2.3Alcohol related crime and ASB: The past year has seen an
increase in alcohol related crime by 27% (from 702 to 895), and an
increase in alcohol related violent crime (+22% from 281 to 343). This
trend also extends to public place violent crime which has increased
in the past year by 24% (from 488 to 603). This alcohol fuelled and
public place violence mainly affects Epsom town centre and Ewell
Village and to a lesser extent, the Longmead estate. This problem can
be attributed to the large concentration of bars and pubs in these
areas, which provide cheap offers on alcohol and as a result fights
and drunken disputes spill out into the street.
In addition to crime statistics, information from a variety of other
sources show the extent of alcohol related issues in the Borough.
The traffic light scheme for pubs and clubs in Epsom town centre and
Ewell Village show a higher proportion of licensed premises flagged
as amber for the past year, as opposed to green. This indicates a
higher number of offences occurring inside the premises. Reports
from EEBC Rangers and Street Pastors indicate that alcohol litter is a
problem both in the town centre and in parks. Data collected from the
police and Surrey County Council’s Children Services shows a high
number of perpetrators of domestic abuse are affected by alcohol. In
addition, a high proportion of individuals discussed by the Nuisance
Prevention Group have alcohol misuse issues.
According to information from the Primary Care Trust, accident and
emergency data shows that alcohol related admissions are on the
increase in the borough. Epsom & Ewell has a relatively high number
of female deaths attributable to alcohol (both at a County and
National level), the highest number of hospital admissions attributable
to alcohol for under 18s in Surrey, and the second highest number of
alcohol related sexual offences in Surrey. Epsom & Ewell has the
fourteenth highest levels of hazardous drinking in the Country (out of
352 local authority areas – Public Health Observatory local profiles
Page 6 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
2007). There appears to be a similar picture across Surrey - 7 other
Surrey boroughs and districts make the top 10 for hazardous drinking
levels. This means regularly drinking above levels where alcohol is
likely to damage your health. In order to tackle the above, alcohol
related crime and ASB will be a priority for the coming year.
9.1.2.4Domestic Abuse: Police statistics show that Domestic Abuse
offences in Epsom & Ewell have increased by around 11% (from 176
to 196) over the last year. Epsom & Ewell had the third highest
number of new contacts to an outreach service in Surrey between
April 2008 and March 2009. This follows a campaign to increase
awareness and reporting of Domestic Abuse. It is thought that the
recession is likely to increase referrals to domestic abuse related
services.
A number of Surrey initiatives may increase take up of DA services.
Awareness raising around honour based violence and the
development of a proposed Honour Based Violence Helpline for
Surrey is likely to generate additional referrals, specialist Domestic
Violence Courts may improve confidence in reporting, and lead to
increased referrals, and it is hoped that the Sexual Assault Referral
Centre project will offer one stop shop access to service and
encourage take up of DA services. Tackling repeat incidents of
Domestic Abuse is a County priority.
9.1.3 Prevent Strategy:
9.1.3.1In addition to focusing on the Borough priorities listed above, Epsom
& Ewell will continue to work to deliver the Prevent Strategy. This is
part of CONTEST, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy to
respond to terrorist threats.
9.1.3.2On a local level, the Prevent Strategy will focus on the following:

Mainstreaming Prevent in day to day policing, through neighbourhood
policing, community engagement and related activity

Working in partnership to support vulnerable individuals and institutions

Ensuring a joined-up approach to all strands of counter-terrorism activity

Developing Prevent capability through at a local level through the CDRP
9.1.3.3Work will take place both at an East Surrey level, through the East
Surrey Resilience group, and at a local level, through the CDRP via
the Epsom & Ewell Prevent Joint Action Plan
10 2010/11 Partnership Plan
10.1
The Partnership Plan for 2010/11 containing actions to address these priorities is
attached as Annexe 4.
10.2
The Partnership Plan will be monitored on a quarterly basis via the Joint Action
Group, with exception reporting to the CDRP.
Page 7 of 8
CRIME AND DISORDER COMMITTEE
14 JUNE 2010
ITEM 02
11 2010/11 Budget
11.1
The CDRP budget for 2010/11 is attached as Annexe 5. Funding decisions by the
CDRP have taken into account the priorities for the coming year.
12 Next steps
12.1
The Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership continues to refine and improve its
performance management approach. Performance Management is a standing
agenda item at every meeting.
12.2
The Strategic Assessment process to decide CDRP priorities for 2011/12 will
commence again in October 2010.
12.3
A 2010/11 mid year CDRP progress report will go to the next meeting of the Crime
and Disorder Committee in November 2010.
WARD(S) AFFECTED: All
Page 8 of 8
5
Minutes of the Meeting of the LICENSING COMMITTEE
held on 7 FEBRUARY 2011
__________________
PRESENTCouncillor Alan Winkworth (Chairman); Councillors Neil Dallen (arrived mid item 01), Graham
Dudley, Christine Howells, Christine Key, Nigel Pavey (arrived mid item 01), Ruby Smith, Jean
Steer, Colin Taylor and Charles Wood
Apologies for absence: Councillor William Keen
In Attendance: Councillor Stephen Pontin, 2 members of the public
Officers present: Kirsty Fishpool, Rachel Jackson, Nick Tapping and Jeanette Skipp
__________________
9
LICENSING ACT 2003 – CUMULATIVE IMPACT POLICY. The Committee received a
report which requested that Members consider if a Cumulative Impact Policy should be
produced for Epsom Town Centre. The impact of the number of licensed premises in
the centre of Epsom was discussed. Over a period of time more residential properties
had been built close to the Town Centre and more were being built as part of the station
development. It was agreed that a balance had to be struck between the needs of the
residents and the night time economy of the Town Centre businesses. Members were
advised that, if agreed, a Cumulative Impact Policy had to be based on an area where
there was evidence of the potential impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives
of a significant number of licensed premises concentrated in that area.
The report made Members aware that, if a Cumulative Impact Policy was adopted, there
would be a Policy presumption to refuse applications where relevant representations
about the cumulative impact on the licensing objectives were received. However, a
premises licence would be granted where representations were not received and
conditions could not be attached to a Licence unless representations were received.
The Policy would not affect premises currently licensed, unless there was a change to
the current premises licence requiring a variation application.
Following discussions all Members agreed that the Town Centre was already saturated
with licensed premises and that this concentration impacted on the area, creating public
nuisance and disorder and that a Cumulative Impact Policy was required.
The Committee agreed that the area to be covered by the Cumulative Impact Policy was
Epsom High Street, including Derby Square and Waterloo Road to the junction with
Station Approach. They further agreed that the Cumulative Impact Policy would be
subject to consultation with interested parties and local residents, following which it
would be brought to a future Licensing Committee for recommendation to Council. The
Cumulative Impact Policy would ultimately become an Annexe to the Licensing Act
Policy and would be reviewed every three years, although more frequent reviews could
occur if necessary.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
6
Meeting of the Licensing Committee, 7 February 2011
10
EQUALITY ACT 2010 – TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES.
The Committee
received a report requesting it to consider if Epsom & Ewell Borough Council should
maintain a list of designated wheelchair accessible Taxi and Private Hire Vehicles. The
Committee decided that the Council should maintain this list and agreed that the drivers
of wheelchair accessible Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles would be subject to the
requirements of the Equality Act 2010. It was noted that drivers could apply to the
Council for exemption if there was a valid reason why they could not comply with the
Act.
11
USE OF THE FRONT SEAT IN PURPOSE BUILT HACKNEY CARRIAGES. On 20
September 2010 the Licensing Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the
revised Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Licensing Policy. At the Council meeting on 14
December the Policy was adopted to be effective from 1 January 2011. During the
Council meeting Councillor Taylor raised concerns about Paragraph 3.a.i of Hackney
Carriage & Private Hire Licensing Policy which read:“In addition, where a vehicle has a front passenger seat in a purpose built
Hackney Carriage Vehicle this seat may be used for the carriage of passengers
but only after all the other passenger seats are first occupied”.
The safety of the driver, if such a seat was occupied by a passenger who was
intoxicated and abusive, was his concern and Councillor Taylor requested that this use
be re-examined at the Licensing Committee on 7 February.
Members noted that a driver was able to refuse to take passengers if they appeared to
be drunk and disorderly. The point was made that if this did not remain in the policy a
distinction was being made between purpose built Hackney Carriages with a front seat
and private hire cars where passengers could be carried in the front seat. Following
consideration the Committee agreed that the Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Licensing
Policy should remain as agreed at the Council meeting on 14 December 2010.
The meeting began at19.30 and ended at 20.47
ALAN WINKWORTH
Chairman
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Minutes of the Meeting of the LICENSING COMMITTEE
held on 3 October 2011
__________________
PRESENT
Councillor Clive Smitheram (Chairman); Councillors Paul Ardern-Jones, John Beckett, Ian
Booker, Pamela Bradley, Neil Dallen, Robert Foote, Robert Geleit, William Keen, Christine Key,
Nigel Pavey, Humphrey Reynolds and Jean Steer.
In attendance: Councillor Alison Kelly and Inspector Craig Knight
Officers present: Carmel Briody, Rachel Jackson and Jeanette Skipp
__________________
2
MINUTES. The Minutes of the Meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 20
September 2010, 7 February 2011 and 19 July 2011 were agreed as a true record and
signed by the Chairman.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. There were no declarations of interest.
4
HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE LICENSING POLICY. It was agreed that
wording “sexual offence or other offences“ would be added to the Suitability of
Applicants – New Applicants - paragraph 1. f. i. on page 4 of Epsom & Ewell Borough
Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy.
5
MINUTES OF THE LICENSING HEARING SUB-COMMITTEES 2010/11.
The
Committee received the minutes of the nine Licensing Hearing Sub-Committees which
had taken place since the Sub-Committee minutes were last agreed at the Licensing
Committee meeting on 28 June 2010.
6
LICENSING ACT 2003 – CUMULATIVE IMPACT POLICY. The Committee received a
report asking it to determine if a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) for Epsom Town Centre
should be implemented to support the existing Licensing Act Policy. In August 2010
Surrey Police had asked if a CIP could be considered for Epsom Town Centre. This had
been discussed at the Licensing Committee on 7 February 2011 and at that time it had
been agreed that a saturation point had been reached and consultation on a CIP should
take place. The Town Centre area which a CIP would cover was discussed and agreed
as set out in the map (Annexe 1).
Consultation then took place and responses from the Surrey Chamber of Commerce,
Epsom & Ewell’s Planning Department and Environmental Health Service, Surrey Fire
and Rescue and Surrey Police had been received and were included in the committee
report. Responses from 10 residents, all supporting a CIP, had been circulated to
Members and made available in the Members’ Room.
Officers reported that since the Licensing Committee on 7 February 2011 the capacity
and number of late night licensed premises in the area covered by the CIP map had
reduced from 11 to 6. Section 182 of the Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003 states that
a significant number of premises, leading to a concentration to a point of saturation, had
to exist to justify a CIP. Inspector Craig Knight said that although he accepted that there
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
Meeting of the Licensing Committee, 3 October 2011
3
were problems in Epsom Town Centre he could not at the present time say that a
saturation point had been reached. He said that the police had a reactive role and
although they had a number of ways of dealing with alcohol related problems, he
suggested that a long term strategy should be developed and suggested zoning.
Officers said that the number of residents in the Town Centre had increased significantly
in the past few years and would continue to do so with more residential accommodation
being built; the Council’s Plan E promoted increased residential building in the Town
Centre. Members pointed out that residents in the roads leading out of the Town Centre
were also affected by the noise of people dispersing from the centre of Epsom in the
early hours.
After a query from Members as to how the zoning would work in practice, Officers
advised that in law the Council could not “fetter its discretion”, therefore there could not
be a blanket refusal to issue any new licences in a particular zone, what zoning would
do would be to create a rebuttable presumption against new licences i.e. a presumption
that any new licences would be refused, which could be rebutted, or overturned, by the
applicant demonstrating the steps it would take to prevent adverse effects on the area.
Zones would also allow the character of the individual areas to be taken into account
within a long term strategy. Such a strategy could identify what was expected within a
particular zone and set parameters in particular areas for example density, dispersal,
doorstaff. In this way greater control could be exercised by the Licensing Authority.
Officers said that the “Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011”, would
introduce a number of changes to Licensing which would be taken into account when
developing the strategy and the new Licensing Policy.
The Committee was unanimous in agreeing that, having taken into account all the
representations received, that they did not want to pursue a special Cumulative Impact
Policy at the present time and that they supported the development of a strategy with
zones. The Police undertook to analyse data and identify zones by December. This
would then be developed into an outline strategy which would then be consulted on in
February/March 2012 before further statutory consultation when incorporated into the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
The Committee agreed to recommend to Council a review of the Statement of
Licensing Policy, to include consultation with residents. This policy would be presented
to a Licensing Committee in early July 2012 with a report to the Council meeting later
that month.
It was agreed that a Steering Group would be established to assist the development of
the new strategy. The Steering Group would be made up of the Sub-Committee
Chairmen, namely Councillors John Beckett, Neil Dallen, Christine Key and Nigel Pavey,
plus the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, Councillor Smitheram.
The meeting began at 19.30 and ended at 21.40
CLIVE SMITHERAM
Chairman
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
23 JANUARY 2012
ITEM 04
ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY SAFETY TARGETED ACTION PLAN FOR EPSOM TOWN
CENTRE
Report of the:
Community Safety Officer
Contact:
Katrina Best
Urgent Decision?(yes/no)
No
If yes, reason urgent decision required:
Annexes/Appendices (attached):
None
Other available papers (not attached):
Epsom & Ewell Joint Action Group confidential agendas
and minutes
Licensing Committee agenda and papers 3 October 2011
Environment Committee agendas and papers 24 March
2010, 24 January 2011 and 26 October 2011
REPORT SUMMARY
This report recommends the adoption of Epsom Town Centre for the next Community Safety
Targeted Action Plan with effect from 1 April 2012
Notes
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee:
1) Agrees to adopt the Town Centre as the new
Community Safety Targeted Action Plan (CSTAP) from
1st April 2012 for the duration of one year.
1
Implications for the Council’s Key Priorities, Service Plans and Community Strategy
1.1
This report relates to the following Key Priorities for 2012/16:
Promoting the economic vitality of Epsom & Ewell.
Enhancing the visual appearance of the Borough.
Improving the quality of life for all residents, but particularly the more vulnerable within
our society.
Promoting safer, more active and caring communities.
1.2
Additionally, the Environment Committee has a Key Service Priority to reduce the incidence
of anti-social behaviour, including the implementation of measures to reassure the public
and to improve the quality of the environment, all through partnership working. The
application of a Community Safety Targeted Action Plan (CSTAP) contributes to the
achievement of this on a Borough-wide basis.
Page 1 of 4
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
23 JANUARY 2012
2
Background
2.1
3
ITEM 04
The purpose of the original CSTAP (originally called a Community Safety Action Zone CSAZ) concept can be summarised as being three-fold, namely:
2.1.1
To develop the partnership approach under an agreed Action Plan in order to
facilitate closer integration and collaboration and to secure more affective
operational activities.
2.1.2
To work with the community to tackle areas of concern.
2.1.3
To monitor community safety issues via the Epsom and Ewell Joint Action Group
(JAG) and Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and to develop further actions
where these are needed.
2.2
An area based (CSAZ) approach was taken in Longmead (2007 and 2009), and in Ewell
Village (2008).
2.3
The Environment Committee then agreed to adopt a partnership based thematic approach
– focusing on tackling anti-social behaviour.
2.4
At its January 2011 meeting, the Environment Committee agreed to adopt another thematic
approach, with the aim of increasing Community Engagement in Community Safety issues.
Work towards this begun in April 2011 and will continue until the end of March 2012.
Proposed new CSTAP
3.1
Town Centre
3.1.1 The only geographical area in the Borough currently being discussed by the JAG which
would benefit from a CSTAP is the Town Centre. There are concerns regarding the levels
of alcohol related crime and disorder and noise issues related to the night time economy.
The area has the highest amount of recorded crime in the Borough, with much of this
attributed to the large amount of businesses and licensed premises. As a Town Centre,
Epsom ranks amongst the highest areas for alcohol related disorder and nuisance in the
County and as such is under routine scrutiny.
3.1.2 Between 1st January 2011 and 31st August 2011, there were 387 incidents of rowdy or
inconsiderate behaviour reported in Epsom and Ewell Central (a Surrey Police defined
neighbourhood area, which includes Epsom Town Centre and mainly constitutes shops,
commercial premises, bars, pubs and restaurants). During this 8 month period, there were
207 violence against the person offences reported to Surrey Police. Nearly half (48.8%) of
these offences were flagged as being alcohol related, and around three quarters (75.4%)
were flagged as having occurred in a public place, indicating that most violent offences
occurred in public places such as streets, pubs and bars.
3.1.3 With an increasing number of residential properties being developed close to licensed
premises, there is a risk that greater numbers of residents are being subjected to
disturbance from licensed premises.
3.1.4 The Town Centre has not previously been the subject of a CSTAP. Historically, issues
relating to the Town Centre were tackled through the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)
Town Centre sub-group. This group is no longer in existence. The Town Centre has
recently been the focus for discussion at the JAG, Epsom & Ewell Business Partnership
and the EEBC Licensing Committee and continues to be at the forefront of planning
strategies and economic development plans.
Page 2 of 4
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
23 JANUARY 2012
ITEM 04
3.1.5 At the 3rd October 2011 meeting of the Licensing Committee, the Committee was
unanimous in agreeing that they did not want to pursue a special Cumulative Impact Policy
(saturation of licensed premises) in the Town Centre at the present time, and instead
supported the development of a strategy with a zoned approach (to be identified by the
Police), with each area having its own licensing requirements. A Town Centre CSTAP
would link in with and support the development of such a strategy.
3.2
Burglary
3.2.1 The only thematic Community Safety which is currently an issue of concern is Burglary.
3.2.2 Figures for domestic burglary for the year to date (April – November 2011) showed a peak
in September, but a continued reduction in offences since. Compared with the same period
last year, there has been a 9.9% decrease in domestic burglaries.
3.2.3 There would be limited scope for a CSTAP focused on Burglary as there are fewer
opportunities for partnership participation. Any interventions required from partners could
continue to be addressed through the JAG.
4
5
Financial and Manpower Implications
4.1
Officer time and other resources needed to manage the arrangements for partnership
working in the CSTAP have been contained within existing resources.
4.2
A variety of resources are applied through partnership working. This joint working, and the
enhanced partnership processes, is designed to secure benefits beyond the contributions
of the individual agencies.
Equalities and Other Legal Implications
5.1
6
Sustainability Policy and Community Safety Implications
6.1
7
There are no implications under this heading. Current enforcement polices are used where
offences have been identified.
This report supports the Council's Sustainability Policy Statement objective of creating
sustainable communities by reducing anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Partnerships
7.1
One of the purposes of the CSTAP was to deliver immediate benefits by improved
partnership action to remedy and respond to problems.
7.2
The success of the CSTAP depends upon the extent to which all partners co-operate to
deliver recognisable improvements.
7.3
The principal agencies/groups are:
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Surrey Police
Surrey County Council
Rosebery Housing Association
Community leaders, voluntary organisations and the residents themselves
Crimestoppers
Page 3 of 4
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
23 JANUARY 2012
8
Risk Assessment
8.1
9
ITEM 04
There are risks that the partnership working is not productive and that any of the selected
actions do not deliver the expected benefits, or have immediate effects, possibly leading to
residents' frustration.
Conclusion and Recommendations
9.1
The current CSTAP will run until the end of March 2012. Any ongoing or outstanding
actions will continue to be worked upon after this time. A full evaluation report will be
brought to the July 2012 meeting of the Committee.
9.2
JAG members feel that the most beneficial area to next apply the partnership approach
would be in the Town Centre, focusing specifically around licensing and the night time
economy.
9.3
A holistic approach (in line with Plan E), including both short and longer term interventions
is required to tackle the Town Centre. A CSTAP would not only look to increase the safety
of users of the Town Centre, but also ensure both the vibrancy and economic development
of the town. This work could help lead to Epsom applying for ‘Purple Flag’ status an
external recognition of good management of the evening economy.
9.4
Whilst the focus for a Town Centre CSTAP would specifically be on issues relating to
licensing/noise nuisance, other forms of criminality, e.g. shop-lifting could also be picked up
as part of the action plan.
9.5
An action plan for the year will be drawn up and monitored via the JAG on a quarterly
basis. Any issues linked to the progress of the action plan will be raised up to the CSP.
9.6
There will be a review at the end of 2012/13 to determine whether a longer term strategy
for the Town Centre is required and whether the CSTAP should continue into 2013/14.
WARD(S) AFFECTED: Town
Page 4 of 4
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ANNEXE 2 REPRESENTATIONS FROM
INTERESTED PARTIES:
PART B: MR HEWLETT
 Email from Mr Hewlett
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 2
From: Andrew Hewlett
Sent: 22 February 2012 8:41
To: Angela Slaughter
Subject: Re: Licensing review of Elements of Spread Eagle Walk
Dear Licensing Team,
I write to make representation regarding the licensing review of Elements of Spread Eagle
Walk.
I write as a nearby resident in the town centre.
I write to request that the licensing hours be restricted on grounds of public nuisance so that
the club does not continue into the early hours in the way that it does currently. I am
sometimes woken by drunken shouting and fights outside my window at very early hours of
the morning - e.g. 3am. These disturbances are caused by revellers who have attended
nightclubs like this and are making their way down Waterloo Road. And given Elements'
current opening times I presume they are largely to blame for disturbances at excessively late
hours like 3am as they (I understand) are the only place open. Those drinking and dancing to
loud music are inevitably going to be loud and boisterous on their way home. Having been
woken up by these noises - especially when they are aggressive / violent - it is difficult to get
back to sleep, thus making me tired for next day. Surely 1am is a late enough time to allow
people a good night out at weekends, meaning that the town centre might have calmed down
by 1:30am/2am.
I have also witnessed groups of revellers hanging round the entrance of the club (not sure if in
their way in or out) when I have wandered back from the office (by Rosebery Park) having
worked very late. This can produce an intimidating and unpleasant atmosphere. As they are
(of course) pretty loud and boisterous I imagine this also causes noise nuisance to those
living in blocks of flats such as The Edge. To clarify: I hear these groups when inside my flat
not when they are immediately outside the club but when they wander down Waterloo Road.
I have no objection to the club itself, and I wish it all success. But the rights of people to party
loudly need to be balanced against the hundreds of residents who live in blocks of flats
around the club and on the routes home that its patrons will take.
Thank you for your time in considering my comments.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew
Andrew Hewlett
The Oaks Square
EPSOM
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ANNEXE 2 REPRESENTATIONS FROM
INTERESTED PARTIES:
PART C: COUNCILLOR NEIL DALLEN
 Letter from Councillor Neil Dallen
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 2
27th February 2012
Grants & Licensing Team
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Town Hall
The Parade
Epsom, Surrey
KT18 5BY
Element’s license review
On behalf of many Town Ward residents I would like to make representations at the forthcoming
review of the license relating to Elements night club on the following grounds.
I would also like to speak at the sub committee hearing if I am available.
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Since the opening of Elements (following the closure of Chicago’s) the premises haws continued to
operate with a poor record as evidenced by the current application of Surrey Police.
In addition I have both had incidents reported to me by residents and personally seen incidents late at
night while in the High Street.
Residents meetings have continued to take place to try to resolve the late night problems that cannot be
directly attributable to one premises. Elements must accept that they are a major contributor to this
issue.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Town Centre residents generally accept that there will be some noise and disturbance but there are
limits but being kept awake after 3am due to revellers walking home (or just walking around) is
unacceptable.
I have often ‘visited’ the town centre and walked around at 3am to see what the problems and issues
are. Inevitably at closing time there are groups of people exiting Elements who are loud and frequently
rowdy.
The noise can be heard clearly from the junction of Station Approach and Waterloo Road, in The
Parade and in the High Street at the Derby Square entrance. This area contains many residential
properties that are directly affected by the noise and disturbances on a weekly basis.
I frequently witness revellers urinating and vomiting both in the road, in alleys and behind buildings in
the town centre vicinity. This is antisocial, a public health issue and a public nuisance and is
unacceptable.
I am happy to talk on the above and expand on any points at the hearing.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr. Neil Dallen
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ANNEXE 3 – PREMISES
LICENCE
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 3
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 4
ANNEXE 4 – LOCATION MAP
LICENSING HEARING
SUB-COMMITTEE
14 MARCH 2012
ITEM 02
ANNEXE 05
Current Closing times of Licensed Premises in the Town Centre, Epsom, as at 29th February 2012 Premises Boogie Lounge Address 1A Waterloo Road Native Tongue 93 High Street Assembly Rooms 147‐153 High Street Slug and Lettuce Marquis of Granby 10 The Derby Square 4 West Street The Vestry 2 Church Street Stir 4 East Street The Rifleman 5 East Street Symonds Well 30 South Street The Albion 134 High Street El Papi Derby Square Bar 76 76 High Street Closing Times Monday to Saturday until 02.30 Sunday until 01.30 Sunday to Wednesday until 02.15 Thursday to Saturday until 03.15 Sunday to Thursday until 01.30 Friday to Saturday until 02.00 Monday to Sunday until 00.30 Sunday to Wednesday until 00.30 Thursday to Saturday until 01.30 Monday to Wednesday until 00.30 Thursday to Saturday until 01.30 Sunday until 00.30 Sunday to Wednesday until 23.00 Thursday until 01.00 Friday and Saturday until 03.00 Monday to Thursday until midnight Friday to Saturday until 00.30 Sunday until 23.00 Monday to Thursday until 00.30 Friday and Saturday until 01.30 Sunday until midnight Sunday to Thursday until 23.40 Friday and Saturday until 00.40 Premises now closed Monday to Saturday until midnight Sunday until midnight Premises now closed Monday to Sunday until 02.00