Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 22 November 2023, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Licensing Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 22nd November 2023 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point

from welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee which will be held in person following technical issues we've had up and down for lets, let's just have this in person, but we've done it for years like this, I'm sure we'll cope tonight this herein will be considering application in respect of the Corin 54 a Tooting High Street S-W 17 0 r n, simultaneous transfer of premises licence and the variation of the licence to change the designated premises supervisor. This application was originally scheduled for consideration at the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting on the 25th of October 2023 but was adjourned due to technical issues.
all primary contacts for the meeting was sent, an electronic reissued agenda for convenience, and two further supplementary agendas have been circulated since the issued agenda was sent out.
Even though we're in-person, we still could have issues so bear with us if that's the case, my name is Councillor Morrison, MacLeod, I am the Chair of Licensing.
and we'll be chairing this meeting, I now.
and we have apologies from one member of the Sub-Committee Councillor Davis who unfortunately can't be here, but, Councillor Birchall can you introduce yourself?
Good evening, everybody, I'm raising a batch of.
for is it just so that we can get an understanding of who's here, I think it'd be useful to to go round the room and just say who we all ask that everyone has or has an understanding, but I'll start with Michael.
thank you, I'm Michael Flowers, the Democratic Services Officer.
Gary Ward legal adviser.
Dean Cooney the applicant for the licence transfer and the DPS position.
Robert Sutherland, representing the applicant, and also the out going licence holder and outgoing DPS.
our James Farr Fisher, the outgoing DPS.
Avon O'Brien police licensing from that place.
Linda Luisa Met police licensing officer.
Stephanie Bruce Smith representative of the Metropolitan police and Tony Hawks from the Licensing Officer for the Licensing Authority.
thank you everybody.
OK, so all those.
remind them present reminded that the Smith Sooners in person
the basic tone of your turn on your microphones each time you want to speak and send them off when you when you finished, but but please go through through me rather than trying to get into into conversations with each with each other just to try and keep the meeting effective.
so declarations are there any declarations of either pecuniary or registered born non-rated were interests in any of the matters to be considered at the meeting.

2 Declarations of Interests

APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003

and that's a note from me to so Simon Adamson consider the application for the similar simultaneous transfer of a permanent premises licence and the variation of a licence to change the designated premises supervisor in respect of the premises known as the Corin rooftop 54 tutoring High Street S-W 17 0 R N,

3 The Corin, 54 Tooting High Street, SW17 0RN (Paper No. 23-345)

the subcommittee will hear the case as a discussion and a maximum time for each speaker to be introduced normally five minutes, but if you're not, if we remember.
previous hearings we've had have ended up being quite complicated, so, as my suggestion is that I increase that to 10 minutes but that I stick to that 10 minutes so so you'll have longer, but I'll try to be quite firm about not letting that.
spread into.
a philosophical conversation.
I am.
ba ba ba ba ba, I think I now go to yeah, so I now go to the licensing officer because that's what yeah, when I go to a tiny halt, to present the report, thank you OK, thank you Chair.
as you mentioned, this is two applications, it's an application to transfer a licence and also to vary the DPS on that licence, and I may be at risk of cursing proceedings here, but I'm gonna start off by saying this is quite a straightforward matter for you to consider and it is just sensitive applications, they are a routine process where it's quite normal for licences to be transferred and for the GPS to be varied, and it's quite normal for those applications to come in together.
and in terms of your decision making, you will have to make two decisions, one on each application, and it is a simple case of you've got your application or you refuse it.
as there's no in between option where you can vary the licence in any other way.
what I would suggest, though, is that you, you make the decision for both applications at the same time.
if you were to grant a transfer, then you can still refuse the DPS application, but you would need to be clear in your reasons for that, likewise, if you were to refuse a transfer, then that then you may well want to consider refusing the TPS variation as well.
but that is all dependent on what you hear today and what what decision you come to.
what I can't avoid mentioning is the it's the background history, to the premises that I'm sure it has come up in the police objection and it will come up from the applicant, is that the licensing question has been revoked by the Sub-Committee at a previous hearing you're not being asked to reconsider that revocation decision you've just been asked to consider whether to grant or refuse to transfer applications.
the that decision to revoke the licences under appeal.
as to whether that decision is why she won't be something that's considered by the magistrates court.
so the police have made an objection to this application, it is up to the police to decide when to object or not, the guidance sets out that the police should only objection exceptional circumstances, but that's something for the police to consider what is exceptional and whether or not they exercise their discretion to object.
the the simple facts of the matter is that the police have objected to the application, and now you need to consider whether granting the application will undermine the licensing objectives or if not, then you can go on to the both applications.
chair, unless you have any further questions from me, I think that that is all I need to say, I know that the both the police and the applicant will want to address you on the final details.
thank you very much to just before we go on to check whether subsequently had any particular questions from thoughts like our case, will we we we, we might have those later?
OK great, thank you, so I now invite.
applicant to address the Sub-Committee, who, who will be speaking, Sarah, I'll probably do most of the questions, and most of them speaking frankly, J German re, reintroducing yourself, they're gonna need it, it's fine Councillor, Robert Sutherland,
sir, what I would look to do.
which is unusual because often I don't refer necessarily to the law, but I think in this eye it's quite appropriate because, as Mr Hawkes has said, it is a very straightforward matter and I shall endeavour to keep it straightforward and whether I succeed is another matter but,
basically, the tests, the question that you have to ask yourself in respect of both applications.
is set out in the Licensing Act in respect of the variation of the DPS it's under section 39 3 B.
and that requires you to have regard to the notice reject the application if it considers it appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to do so.
so if you're satisfied that, on the basis of what the police say to you today, that it's appropriate for the crime prevention, promotion of that objectives, or if if it's appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective
to refuse the application, then you should refuse it in respect of the transfer to a different section, that the test is, in fact, the same, so if you were to refer to section 44.
and
it's.
subsection 5, the one that says having regard to the notice where the notice is given, I will go through that you reject the application if it considers it appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to do so, so the test is the thing.
I will submit that that places the onus on the police, that if the police do not satisfy you, that it is appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
then you should reject the application now in respect of this these particular applications,
unusually, you have both the outgoing licence holder and the incoming licence holder present.
Sarah, I, you were present, I think, during the review hearing, and I know that the committee expressed views that in relation to transferring the licence and also varying the GPs.
which, of course, is what we are seeking to do. There were also issues raised about the outgoing licence holder, global hospitality, the director of whom is Mr Fisher, who is sitting on my right, and also the GPs, who is also Mr Fisher, who is sitting on my right, and it seemed appropriate, sir, that in these circumstances, if there are questions in relation to him and the operation of the premises and how the premises has operated since we were last in front of the Committee effectively for the review hearing, I want Council the sort of non-effective hearings, but the the review, hearing what's happened at the premises since then, obviously he can do with a question, so if you have them, and that's why he's here specifically really to deal with with with your questions, the other thing I would say in relation to this application so that this
from the applicant's perspective, the police objections are inappropriate and really to do with and to deal with the revocation the review proceedings now, as has been indicated to you, they're currently on appeal, the law allows the premises to continue to trade and it has done so.
now you may recall so that when we appeared in front of you.
for the review hearing, there were a number of things that were indicated by Mr Cockney, and also in respect with who was also present, and so what I'm here to say to you and what Mr Cockney is, is that those things that they said that they would do they have done so all of the things that they set out to you they have put into place so the premises did close they did replace all the staff and I set all of this out it's in
Mr Cockney statement, which you've no doubt, read the applicants bundle, I think, starts at the roundabout page 39 of your bundle.
and the steps that he set out is on on the second page of his statement.
and I've listed them there at paragraph 14, so he says everything we said to the committee we would do, we have done premises close for two weeks, reopening on the 22 of September.
the application for transfer was lodged before the reopening that's important, and the reason that that is important is the deeming provisions within the Licensing Act it meant that once the application was submitted
the licence holder was any fact, cross collective limited, the same of the TPS, so when the premises opened, as the company was the DPS, not Mr Fisher.
the management agreement was in place, all staff have been employed at the premises before his Mr Courtney's involvement were dismissed, the new GM was appointed new staff, appointed, there was a new security company, all policies were reviewed and implemented all staff trained on the licensing requirements and policies.
and
he says everything I said to the police that I would do I've done, and they're welcome to come and view the CCTV at any time, no one has come to the premises to inspect the premises, to check whether what we're saying is correct or nor have they come to check the CCTV.
but the basis of this application today is, while we've explained to you or and and at no stage again during the review proceedings, did we challenge the the what was said in relation to global hospitality, nor what was said in relation to James Fisher, we've accepted that from the start and we've indicated that we were coming in on a temporary basis.
things were worse than they had actually anticipated, they were initially, but they've come in and they've they've changed things around, and it was a temporary basis in order to allow the premises to continue to be able to be transferred to another operator.
you will see in the latest submission today which
and additional.
a letter from
respect with respect, with apologises for not being here, she was here on the last occasion, but unfortunately due to family commitments wasn't able to come tonight, sir, hence the hence the letter.
but she sets out that they have obtained a different operator.
this is on the supplementary agenda and
Page, I think, Page 3 of the supplementary agenda, then she sets out what they do, what's happened at the premises, how they've operated, she sets out the new operator that's proposed and at the moment they're going through contractual heads of terms with an intention with a hope that they will take over the operation of the premises on a permanent basis within the next month to two months.
they set out who they are.
and other premises that they operate, the printing is not particularly clear and my apologies.
that the copies are not, they're not very clear, but you can see that we've got about one minute, so I've almost finished you've then got the reference from Mr. Kidd.
setting out his experience.
and whilst I can't putting forward today, because obviously I'm not in a position to, but what I am saying to you, sir, is that everything that we said to you when we appeared in front of you for the review that we would do we have done and that is where we're at, and it's on that basis that I would urge the committee to grant the transfer and grant the variation of the GPs if you do not OK, so what happens is that the licence still exists. It reverts back to Mr Fisher's company, he becomes an or or reinstated as the GPs. It's on that basis that I am submitting to, Sir, that this is a no-brainer. This is a situation where you grant the application. It's Mr Cockney
and Mr Cantonese company, thank you, sir, thank you.
right to think that you have any questions at this point, or was it useful to the police?
OK, yeah, then light was on, I've got, so, unless you haven't been particularly Mr Ward now.
OK, so it's so.
to seek to.
OK, so now I invites.
the Justice Sub-Committee piece that the police representatives, I'm not sure who, who's doing, the speaking.
I, I will be chair.
as, as you will have seen, the police object to both the transfer of the licence to Cronus collective limited and the application to vary. The DPS to Mr Dean Cockney on the basis that this change would, in the police's view undermine the crime prevention objective and that's because the police remain unsatisfied that Mr Cockney and or his company are not under the instruction or direction of Mr Fisher who the police consider to be a wholly unsuitable operator and that Mr Fisher is an unsuitable operator is is not in dispute as Mr Southern has accepted, it was both the conclusion that the Committee came to and not am disputed by the premises licence holder at the Committee meeting on the 6th of September.
the police consider that transferring the licence or varying the DPS to a company or a person who is an associate an employee or otherwise answerable to Mr Fisher would undermine the objective, and this is because it would result in the continued involvement of Mr Fisher in the operation of the premises but in circumstances where such involvement is much less transparent.
unless there is a clear break with the previous operation of the business, namely in terms of it being managed by Mr Fisher as in it not being managed by Mr Fisher in future, the police consider that any transfer risks undermining this objective and this has been the consistent position of the police since these applications were made and, if I may, I wish to bring the committee through a bit of the background I understand that the the Sub-Committee have read the papers, but there are some points we would wish to highlight.
the first relates to the Sub-Committee meeting on the 6th of December, and those members of the sub-committee who, who were there may may recall that the premises licence holder this being global hospitality limited, Mr officious company was represented by Mr. Sutherland, who was there as Mr Fisher's legal representative but also by Ms Lucy back with Mr Dean Cockney and Mr. Andy Newman these are all introduced as representatives of the previous company.
and indeed Mr Dean Cockney and Ms Lucy Beckwith were introduced to the police and the Committee as consultants instructed by Mr Fisher, and they accepted that they that they had instructions from him and were under his instruction at this committee meeting, they put forward certain suggestions as to how the business could be reformed, however, none of these have been raised in advance.
and nor the police aware of these proposals until minutes before the meeting began, and there was no time for such proposals to be scrutinised, so it cannot be concluded, therefore, that these were acceptable proposals either to the Committee or to the police. Now, in terms of the applications, you'll see that these were made on the 22 of September, there was a further team's meeting between the police and the applicant, or indeed Mr. Sutherland and and the team this being Mr cottony, Ms back with a few days later, on the 26th or and following this meeting, further information was sought by PC Lewis who and it is a description of this meeting, it is at page 33 of the main bundle, but also, and I'll bring you to this into in the correspondence between the two P C Lewis, who asked for further information, namely in terms of the business structure and the involvement of Mr Fisher
we we had the it just in terms of the the timeline are about that, that the absence of any response to that question and an explanation as to the business involvement of Mr Fisher resulted in the police objection being made on the 6th of October in advance of the previous adjourned hearing by PC Lois where this the the concerns of the police in this regard were were set out at.
at
j, just to remind the Committee, then we had the adjourned hearing where, on the day of the hearing, this or a new proposal was put forward, a 64 page bundle which again there was not sufficient time to scrutinise.
and an agreement was made, so so please have had the chance to consider it. There are a few details from this bundle that we would wish to draw out that the first is the bundle does include what is called a management structure, and this is on page 7 of of the using the applicants bundles numbering. I'm afraid I can't quite see the numbers on on the committees Bundoora, they're a bit
are out of line for me, but there is a management structure, I think it might be on page 40 Essex, but what this does not show is Mr Fisher's involvement, so it's page seven on the paper paid references for the the applicant but sorry for its fade 40 6 I think it should be off the main bundle.
I I I it sets out a is a structure, but it doesn't explain which was that the question of the police's, how does Mr Fisher fit into this, and what is the relationship between this new organisation and Mr Fisher, there are also documents which were recalled witness statements by by the applicant, however, it should be emphasised that these are merely letters or or,
these are the words of the of the applicant, or a witness statement is is technically a court document where which is which carries considerable weight, because anything that's said in it, that's not true, can result in prosecution, these are just statements and should be given weight as as if someone had come and said these things as well.
and finally, a, and this will become slightly clearer, is that there is a management agreement that is set out or at the very end of this bundle, which between the licence holder and or as an between Mr Fisher and Mr Cockney, however this this is only for one year it's not clear what will happen after this this time, or all of this resulted in a number of further concerns, and these were raised by PC Liu in an e-mail dated the 1st of November, and this is set out in the supplementary the first supplementary bundle at page 6.
of that bundle, and this is the full correspondence and I would. I would just like to bring the Committee to it. I was wondering, if how much time do I have left approximately four minutes? OK, I'll I'll I'll I'll try to be very quick Councillors, so hopefully you've have the page in front of you of page 6, so these were the questions that were asked to the premises licence holder after the bundle was provided that the first relates to trying to understand Mr Cockneys role. He had previously been introduced as a consultant to the Committee, but the CV mentioned no consultancy experience
and it's not clear how his involvement is or or how that happened number question number 2, when the main questions, and concerns the current business relationship of Mr Fisher, Mr. Carney, and specifically whether there is any payment received or given by either side for this ongoing relationship and again are concerns about who Ms Beckwith is and her relationship that's question 3 given her previous involvement,
question for trying to understand Mr that sutherland's involvement, of course he was always introduced as the legal representative of Mr Fisher, and now he's here, also as an agent of who is who is introduced to be produced, for somebody who is completely separate from this previous business and therefore the police were trying to understand that a and and second or just drawing and finding in question 5 drawing attention to material in that bundle which suggests that there was continued.
continue our operation or involvement of global hospitality, limited services, question 5 which refers back to a document provided which notes that refers to people employed by global hospitality limited, or I'm just trying to understand their role or and then finally referencing that that issue with the management agreement which was raised in respect of which I have just mentioned.
no, no response was ever received to these to this e-mail, so if you, if it had page 6 again just at the top, you'll see the acknowledgment by Mr. Sutherland, which would ask but says he'll afford on the e-mail to all involved and mentions his seeking to look for a minor variation, but if you go back again just because it is in reverse chronological order, no PC Bullen PC Louisa May made clear that she'd like to get the answer to these questions first and will then consider any further submissions, and so that was a reminder. There are and no
no answer was forthcoming, and the police still have not received an answer now that that brings us to today, where at 10.30 in the morning, information was provided to the police as being in the second supplementary agenda agenda, and this is the letter from Ms Beckwith and are just three three points that that the police wish to make in relation to this letter. First, in terms of timing and trust, this is this is very disappointing and concerning in terms of the concerns the police already have. It's it's the third time information has been provided very late. There are new proposals raised
which with which the police have not given were being provided with further detail, also, it's very difficult again for the police to understand what the intentions are.
Ms Beckwith states in this letter, that communication has proved challenging at times and not always transparent, and the police couldn't agree more in that. There has been a clear failure on the part of the premises licence holder to engage with a PC loser and respond to her concerns, and this absence of response has further heightened. Those concerns is a clear questions. This has been a clear concern of the police from the start and in terms of understanding whether this transfer will be harmful or not, and they have not been answered. And finally, the proposals appear to be proposing a new operator, so the these are seemed to be different proposals to those that were already set out in the 64 page bundle and there is a lot of questions, so please now have is. How does this new operator fit into the management structure that was previously provided is the plan to transfer that licence into the operator's business or and if so, what's the purpose of these applications and
sorry.
yeah, so it's essentially a and the final question which which the police have which has not been answered and will it is, remains a question is, is there any business relationship now between Mr Fisher and this potential new operator and please would have the same questions with which have gone unanswered so just in? In conclusion, the police maintain their objection to these applications and primarily that on the details provided and in the absence of any response to the requests for information, the police consider that this transfer,
to Mr carnivorous company, where he had previously indicated at the Committee that he is answerable to Mr Fisher would undermine the crime prevention objectives, and the police is not satisfied on any of information, provided that Mr Fisher would not be involved in the running of the premises or its operation either financially or otherwise.
fine, thank you.
do we have any questions for the police?
no, because I haven't had time to raise the O'Neill, thank you that I haven't had time to read the only answer that you've received, you haven't received answers to any of your five questions, is that correct that that is correct? The the e-mail went unanswered or ovarian is an acknowledgement of the e-mail and a promise to for that to be transferred, but the e-mails that were provided here are the only correspondence and interaction.
between PC Liuzhou and and Mr. Sutherland I I, since since or at that time, though, there was one further visit that was carried out, Miss P C loser was in the area, dropped in dropped into the premises to hand some leaflets in, but there was no conversation between the management and PC Liuzhou.
I I because I am in for, from my point of view I despised us for just said I I make sure I'm I'm understanding the police, the problem the police have with this application is you believe that,
there is still involvement from the previous manager. You know you don't believe it's it's it says it's being presented as a as a new company where a fresh start, but I do believe that as there's two still involvement from the previous regime, the police's concern is that there is is still involvement and that that's the form of the basis of other questions. Now, if the police were satisfied that this is a completely new and separate operation, the police would not be making this objection and that the problem is that they behave and, and this is what the police have been trying to do, is asking the question, so try to be satisfied that this is completely separate or one and just to confirm that it, it's not so much that the police are taking a suspicious approach. It's that at the premise at the first meeting where the police were present,
these individuals were introduced as being part of a team that was instructed by the licence holder or, and were there, with the who was then Mr Fisher's legal representative, so that the police can really understand how all on one hand there's their employer, they are instructed by their employees of the licence holder and now they're completely separate, so that that is the concern of the places that are and and obviously we understand that circumstances can change and relationships business relationships can change, but if that's the case, the police want to be certain and confident that there is a change and there is a separation
we would have expected a reply, then, if there had been any change, what Bob for precisely that is that is the position that the police have come come to, is that the absence of the replies is is what's even more concerning, because what if, if the answer is very straightforward that there is a separation that there is no involvement, there is no relationship things have changed completely.
then that we, though it would have been expected that that could have been set out very clearly in an e-mail and would have been a very straightforward e-mail to write, it's a very simple answer.
instead, I ask who you contacted to prove that the contract just, so we can be sure that yeah, so it's in the e-mail of Jane you'll see it, it is addressed to.
Mr Sutherland, who was given as the agent for the current point of contact, are Andrew you'll see that or or, and this is maybe one of the reasons why he has given us a point of contact is you'll see, there is quite a big team, there's a number of people who it's not always clear their involvement, and you'll see that in response to this e-mail with all the questions Mr. Sutherland said, you know thank you and I will forward on to all involved. So it is the police's understanding from this is that this e-mail was forwarded to all the relevant people. They were aware of it and and that a response would be forthcoming, which it still has not been for. Thank you any more questions before I, I'd quite like to know what we'll do once we won't see punishments, places is let's go back to the applicant, but do you have any more
I I absolutely yeah, that's that's that's what we'll do now, but I wanted to make sure that we had we understood that the police are the
well, we we certainly can go
so sorry, returning to returning to the abdomen, I want to invite you just to respond to what the police said, but.
and for my personal understanding do do you accept that you receive these e-mails, asking these questions and, if so, why, when there was?
so that there is no dispute that the questions have been made.
I think the issue is that, for the purposes of this application, which is to do with the transfer of the licence and the variation of the DPS, the questions are not relevant to the decision that you need to make, I accept that there is a decision that will be made in respect of the revocation of the licence and that subsequently on appeal the questions that the police are raising are in relation to the ongoing operation.
when it will be for the the licence holder to to demonstrate to the court when that time arises that the the the decision of the committee was wrong and part of that basis as to why it could be wrong would be on the basis of a change in circumstances,
as was indicated to the Committee, and has has been maintained all the way through slur Mr Cockney and respect, with have been very straight with the Committee and answered the questions and also dealt with questions at the hearing as to the fact that they were coming in to assist Mr Farah in relation to trying to save the business because it had got into the difficulties that it had got into that was never disputed.
they made it very clear that they were coming in to save it. They made it very clear that, because of the lateness you'll recall so that there was a request that the matter be adjourned, the Committee decided that it was appropriate to continue and there was no criticism of the committee in relation to that, so that was your decision and of course, on that basis we addressed the Committee and I think it was very clear that they said to the committee we don't have definite plans, we can't really come to you with something because we just haven't been able to prepare it
that is an indictment on, I suppose, the licence holder and the fact that he brought them in at a very late stage.
it was also made very clear that they would take over the operation on a temporary basis that they would remove all of the problems are and the people who were involved previously, they would remove Mr Fisher from the premises and that they would operate it in line with the licence and in line with promoting the licensing objectives. That's what they said to the committee, and that is what they have done that relationship, which they set out to the committee on that day, to which the police were present is the relationship that exists now the detail of that relationship for the purposes of this transfer, so I would submit they're not relevant
the fact is that that relationship is there, the fact is that Mr Cockney saddens Mr Cockneys company at the end of the day, that's made the application, they said that they would remove Mr Fisher from the premises and that he would not be able to be to enter the premises when it was open and trading that is that they followed through on.
so everything that they have said they have done the licence continues to trade, so because it is able to continue to trade because of the action of law and everything that Mr Courtney has done in relation to the operation is to promote the licensing objectives by complying with the licence and by doing all of the things that probably should have been done by the by global hospitality, and we're not so sure it's on that basis that we say the questions that have been raised are questions which we think irrelevant to the t t to the court when they deal with whether the decision to revoke was was or was the right decision, whether it was proportionate and appropriate or whether, because of the change in circumstances, another decision can be imposed
this stage we're just looking at, how does this premises operate and we say as part of this application the Committee suggested that we transfer the licence and I'm not saying it's all down to the committee that the committee said, Why haven't you transferred the licence and we said we haven't a chance at this stage, but we will and we will vary the DPS now, nothing that happens in this hearing today will change the fact that I think it's the 28th of February, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.
that or 27th of February to the end of February, we will, if we're still in a dispute, will be at the Magistrates' Court and will be explaining to the magistrates' court as to why that decision was wrong. Nothing changes here. If this transfer goes ahead and the variation of the DPS I don't I don't all of a sudden gotta get out of jail free card, which I can put and say Hey, I'm trumping everything because you do you dealt with this today. This is a practical
issue about how the premises operates between now and when the appeal is dealt with, the alternative is that it's not dealt with, and I appreciate what the police are saying in the sense that they say well, Minister, Mr Fisher, is gonna be operating at pulling the strings, but it won't be obvious and it won't it won't be clear, and our response to that is will
it is clear because we have said what's going to happen and we've made it clear and we've invited you down, so you can come and inspect us, we're very transparent in the sense that you could come and interrogate the CCTV, if you want to see whether what we're saying about his presence is right you can come and interrogate the staff you can come and interrogate Mr Cockney and and ask them questions about the operation.
but we are promoting the licensing objectives because we are compliant with the licence and we are compliant with the law.
and the problem person that was identified by this committee and is set out as the basis for your decision in revoking the licence.
is the gentleman sitting behind me?
Mr Fisher and his company, we are, I can't remove them completely so, but I can push them to the side in the sense that the operation can be controlled by someone who is responsible and who can promote the licensing objectives, sorry, it's okay, it's a solid sense regardless though so is what what you're saying is.
and I am putting words in your mouth, put the onus and I'm making sure I'm understanding the words that came out of the mouth.
you're saying that you haven't responded to the police, because you don't think what they're asking is relevant in this case, is that right they're saying that it's not relevant to this decision.
and what they're asking is for clarification between the person that you've just identified as the problem and the new company, so they're asking for clarification that Federer's relationship between those two things they're asking us to demonstrate there's complete separate operation and I can't demonstrate that said, because that's not the case and it's never it's never been said that that would be the case. That's why I'm saying she said when we appeared in front of the Committee as part of that revocation hearing it was made very clear that they were coming in to assist to steady the ship and make sure that it operated lawfully
and that's that's the situation, they will get somebody else in now again, it's been said that it's a change in circumstances. I would say no, it's an update of the circumstances that we now have identified somebody and we're in a position where we can put them on the table and say Look, these people are seriously interested, I can't say whether they will take it on there's lots of things that could happen between now and whenever, whenever a contract is made, but when we're in a position to be able to do that, a fresh application will be made. Ms Beckwith refers, this refers to this in her letter
and
we will meet with the police and talk to them about any questions they've got in relation to the to the new person coming in, we're trying to do it in stages, but that's what we're trying to achieve, OK for Councillor.
I just find it very strange that you have decided not to answer the very simple questions that the police have asked.
and you, you've decided that it's not relevant, so you don't have to answer their questions and I thought in licensing the police will really quite an important part of it, so I'm I'm very surprised at your decision not to answer their questions.
you have a question.
I was going to try and unsupervised yeah.
that's OK, you like me.
sorry, but it was at this point I kindness warmth.
I guess you just be more effectively saying what I think I think the difficulty is and I'm conscious of what I'm saying May seem quite controversial, but just because they appear to be straightforward questions and simple questions does not necessarily mean that another party has to answer them and I think what we are saying is that in this particular case they are questions which are irrelevant for the final.
the final showdown in relation to the revocation.
and yes, we will need to establish that.
that?
if we have a fight, or if it's dealt with in another way, which it could well be done, that the people who are coming in and operating it are completely separate from Mr Fisher that I accept is appropriate, but for this particular set of circumstances we have always made it very clear that the the permanent solution is not been Cockney or his company, they are a temporary situation and they are looking to move this on to somebody else and the questions in relation to, and certainly the question in relation to my involvement actually take as quite an offence. I think it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant as to as to what a representative has that's between me and
any organisation that I've worked for, but putting that to one side and taking my personality out of it, it's.
just because the answers are refused does not mean that we're not promoting the licensing objectives, what we are saying is we are promoting the licensing objectives, the situation is, as we've said, that it was in front of the Committee.
when we turned up what I don't want is to have another answer, which is what's happening, and you may say Well, it's the police, surely they can do that and I'm going to say to you know they can't, but you you're getting your getting more and more information as that information comes in somebody forensically goes through, it says Well that's different to what he said on that particular day.
and what I'm saying to you is no on that particular day, basically what they said was we come in, will sort this out temporarily, we will remove Mr Fisher, will remove all of the staff who were there under Mr Fisher and we will operate in line with this licence and in line with the law and,
based on a suggestion that we apply for a transfer and variation of the TPS, that is what we have done and I'm going to pick up on what Mr Hawkes has said at the start, it's a straightforward, simple issue, it's are we promoting the licensing objectives by transferring the licence to
out of Mr Fisher's company and into Mr Cavani's company, and are we promoting the licensing objectives by removing Mr Fisher and putting it into Mr Cavani's name, and the answer to that has to be a resounding yes, it has to be, because otherwise what are we doing here?
thank you.
Mr Ward, did you want to say something?
I just want yes to yeah, thank you, I just wanted to make an observation about questions that can be asked at the Committee and and what's relevant, so that it, as you quite rightly said at the beginning of this meeting, the meeting is in the form of a discussion and I just wanted to say that you, you are at liberty to ask questions that you feel are irrelevant to making the determination,
and to note that the the the police have made their representation and the concern was that the was regarding transparency.
it doesn't in France say that it doesn't stop you asking these questions if you want the answers to them, if you feel that that's going to help you make your decision and that's entirely up to you, but as you've probably heard, those questions may not be answered anyway.
I put these, then it's sorry I I was going to say, obviously this was entirely right and the reason, Sir, that you have both with sorry my teeth and strike the reason we have brought Mr Cockney overseas, the applicant we may have questions for him but I've also arranged for Mr Fisher to come because there may be questions for him to.
so, yes, we are here to answer your questions for you.
yes, can I ask Mr Catholic?
you came to the last meeting, which I wasn't at as a consultant, so what sort of consultant were you?
show myself and Lucy Beck ref.
became involved in the business at the final hour just ahead of the hearing, not quite sure the severity of what happened at the venue and what we witnessed at the CCTV in every lead up to the to the here in itself and the the idea was to get involved in a consultancy basis with our licensing experience from spanning 15 years between myself and Lucy Peck with and assist with stabilising the business, offering support and bringing in an extended thing that we have of licensing officers, consultants so so on and so forth.
what we experienced at the hearing was a slightly different scenario than what we expected, so, as you may recall at the hearing, we almost kind of shifted our position to being a console and that actually this is a lot more serious than we anticipated we can get involved in as of tomorrow we could be an operator and obviously closed the business and get everything that we agreed at that hearing in place so things shifted during that hearing which we didn't anticipate and that's how it shifted over we spent the following two weeks completely revamping the business clearing out the old bringing in the new
and essentially delivered on everything that we said we would do at that hearing, obviously a couple of weeks after that we then have the
the
applications for myself denied by the the police, which was an interesting decision, which I wasn't expecting, obviously the venues in an appeal, and if that doesn't go through, then of course everything goes back into global hospitality and it's a potentially one as it was before. So in terms of my involvement now, I've stepped in a southern management agreement with my company to the previous company. James Fisher quite clearly says he's not involved in the business. Moving forward, operationally has no involvement in place. A one is of the venue, has no involvement in day-to-day financial payments for the VIP of the venue and suppliers that I deal with on a day-to-day basis payroll. It all comes through myself, so that's how the transition has gone from where we were going to start to to now
thank you, so see your and experience licence holder, why were you invited to to come to that last meeting?
I mean, but what was your relationship with everybody prior to that meeting short, so the licence before Lucy Beckwith has a history of working alongside James Fisher from when the licence was first issued?
I'm gonna guess five, maybe six years ago.
sir Lucie worked alongside James worked alongside the local authorities have an experience in the area before Lucy was working alongside Mr Fisher to obtain that licence originally.
not to speak on his behalf, but there was after the licence was granted, Lucy decided to so obviously part ways with that professional relationship, move on to other things, myself, elusive works on projects together since then, obviously because of the affiliation, because of the trouble, I suppose a phone call was what was made by Mr. Fisher to see if there could be any assistance via Lucy, given the history and the affiliation with the local authorities by association. I came as part of that package and that's where we are today
now it's probably also.
to the to that information, the licence was granted.
I think at the start of the pandemic and so although the licence was granted number of works needed to be carried out at the premises and the premises never opened and before the premises opened, I understand respect with had ceased to be involved in the business, so it's not a question where it opened and traded with her it never opened and treasured with her simply because of the situation with the pandemic.
but thankfully, that's not well, and so are another question for you, Mr gardening, so your is there.
any use, instead, that there'd be no management control by Mr Fisher over the company, is there any financial or any connection at all between your company and his company?
shut, so when we was initially instructed to come and help stabilise the business of our support and services with the licence, initially we was paid an upfront cost to facilitate this process, which we knew would be a few months leading to the new year with the intention always super transparent Lucy was that was going to try and find a new operator with our
expertise and knowledge within the industry connections that we've made over the years, given it with professional operators and
with that, initial upfront cost has not been any payments since then, so we've obviously shifted from consultancy basis into an operational basis, set up a management structure and shifted overload the services from a consultant basis to a day-to-day operation basis, so so there was the initial, I'm in trouble you guys learn about licence come in and help me here's a month.
but now you're running the you'll know you're running the organisation and the muscles you're not going to have that work, neither is it. The the initial payment was a substantial payment that we agreed in advance, knowing that we'd be involved fed him up into hearings many times over years. I know how time can show us if this can be and the effort that goes into it, so we knew that this would be a week in week out project. Sorry, that's just shifted from licensing advice and consultants to now day-to-day operation very fortunate. I've got a very, very strong GM that I recreated between my first week being involved in a business who does the day-to-day operation, so I'm not physically there every single day I don't need to be, I'm there when the venue is operating and open for some there to ensure that the licensing objectives are upheld at all times, and you're doing that based on the money that you were given added that it was not the bit I'm trying on national generally, including Hitler's. It was money, it was money that was paid in advance to see us through a three-month project that is rooted in the year so that's not changed and that's
an agreement was made at the beginning, this process in September, and we've just shifted our services from a consultancy basis to operate.
so if I can assist at the the sums that we're talking about, are a commercial sum, so it's not a, this isn't a friendly basis, it was a substantial figure, but it would be.
and the money now coming in.
to the business website.
the business at the moment, whilst we've made many changes to the operations, the type of events the web we're putting on internally in house, we are struggling to make a profit week in week out, so whilst the money is coming in, it's going straight back out and paying off.
existing suppliers, obviously, staff there's not any profit in the business hasn't been for eight weeks, but
I mean, sorry, I didn't necessarily on profit, money comes in, so it is going into your business now incorrect not the money to come into the business still going through global hospitality, thank you.
that can I can, I am why I I wanted to check in with the police again if that psychiatry I wanted to.
has anything you've heard.
assuaged any of your concerns, I, I'm I guess will try, I'm trying to get the answers to the questions that you were answering, or at least get my understanding of those questions as anything you've had sort of calmed your face.
sorry, we appreciate, Gerry, are you checking do you mind if I just have a quick, quick discussion with with the video officers to my left just to understand?
so I just thought, yeah yeah OK, so I'll I'll spot that it was that enough time for you to have a conversation, yes, Chair, do you have any thoughts yes yesterday I just in response to your question which was due to these as far as your
help our concerns or change our concerns and in short, no no, that they don't, and there's one of three points that we just like to highlight. The first is that what has been confirmed today is that global hospitality limited is still receiving all the revenue the business. The essentially the underlying business remains global hospitality, limited or, and that is precisely what the police wanted to understand, because if the underlying business is global hospitality limited than they are the owner and they are effectively, they have a paymasters off of Mr Carney and and the team. They are the employees. Indeed, when we notice that they are described as the employer of them are, and therefore this
it appears that Mr Fisher is still very much the operator, the manager and the person in control, and that that is what the police are and, as everyone has been accepted, is is unsuitable in our view, the the second concern that has been raised is that the licence holder were able to answer these questions now but were unable to answer them when asked by the police and this further but added an element of concern in terms of trust and the ongoing ability for the licence holder and under this new management, to to have this close, really working relationship with the police in terms of prevention of crime disorder, which again is something that the police consider very important when we work. But please work with operators and expects a certain level of transparency, and the third concern that that's been raised is well. How about this new operator that has been mentioned will be
revenue still go through global hospitality limited in in whatever these proposals are, will our global hospitality limited still be the underlying owner, so in short, if you ask who is the owner, the owner remains global hospitality limited, and for transparency purposes the police would consider it would be appropriate that global hospitality, limited or still the premises licence holder or as that reflects the true possession,
and they're just two points in in relation to this, the first is that the premises licence holders seem to suggest that the police were seeking complete, complete separation between the old premises licence holder and the new one. And that's not actually what the police have have ever asked. The police have just asked to understand the nature of the business relationship, to see whether there might be pressure from someone who might be the owner and understand who was paying who and wherever it happened and those questions weren't answered. It's for the police, having received offers of information to think about where do the risks live, could there be a risk, is this involvement too much and and those questions have not been answered until today or and because of that the suspicion was perhaps it is too close or and that has to be considered being confirmed
I am just the the, the second point is, and it's my I'll answer, potential questions is what's being posed to the committee as well.
and what's the alternative, if, if you say no to this suggestion, then doesn't?
wouldn't want to be worse because the premises licence stays with global hospitality limited and, from the police's perspective, it it, it would not leave this, the transfer would be a worse outcome because you would have the the same in terms of the line of management, you'd have Mr Fisher's continued involvement and control, but this this relationship suddenly becomes less transparent. We don't know what's actually happening the the actual ewes, the line of control that is mixed up and it gives this impression of being different when it's not and the police consider that to be more dangerous and worse.
and and that that is the main concern that they have, thank you, but that's helpful, thank you officers.
before I go back to the applicants Councillor, do you have any critical policy?
sir, sorry, I before you before you ask me a question.
sorry, I it may help, I don't know if if, if I was able to ask a question of the police and I will indicate the question, but I'm about to ask.
and you can indicate whether you are prepared to allow me to ask you to tell me requirement, that's quite a strange, it is sorry, I don't want to go to know whether it's true or you entirely have them all puffs and all the indication from the police as I understand it is that the transfer puts them in a worse position because it is less transparent.
in relation to the DPS.
in changing the GPs from Mr Fisher to Mr catch me.
is is the position still the same that in relation to the DPS, there's a lack of transparency and or or does the that help, in fact, that Mr Fisher is removed as DPS Mr Cockney comes in?
wow I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll be willing to ask the Commissioner, I'm gonna know me, I wanted to ask the pigs that I I believe I mean the the position of DPS is very specific, though isn't it, so it's a very specific position with with you know when a specific
I mean, the DPS areas is very much responsible for being the premises, supervisor and ensuring, I suppose, compliance with the licence yeah, which of course is what we're saying is happening with Mr Cockney, and the committee certainly found and we've never disputed it, that was not happening with Mr Fisher.
OK.
officer, or are you willing to response to that, I mean, I would say, you're not gonna you, that's not the the direction of this inquiry, but if you, if you are willing to help us, I suppose with our
and then there is just one point I I do want to say, and I might defer to PC Lucy due to supplemented and if this doesn't cover the answer fully.
it is the first point is this is why, although this application to 2 transfer to the DPS was made a while ago, this is the first time in this committee today that we have actually understood, and Mr Cockney is being paid by Mr Fisher in this sort of upfront commercial basis to provide these services and the police would have to have a think about that and understand what that means in terms of his ability to be a responsible.
GPs, in the sense of the in the nature of this relationship, which we would emphasise, is still not fully clear to us in terms of how this works, so it was about as a kind of more of a holding response in that if we had this information and in response to the questions that were asked, we'd be in a much better position to sit down and think about is this still problematic or not, but we have only found that out today so that's also why these these are all kinds of new questions for us because further for days because there haven't been one
understood or a and, and, I guess a second point and the reason why the objection was made in the first place, as you'll see from the representations, was that there was this, but what appears to be continuation of management are. The issue of the start was the management, it's the irresponsible management and it was. It was made clear in our representations at the previous meeting that, for changing of the DPS would not allay the fears of the of the concerns of the premises, because it was top-down, it was the, it was the irresponsible management by Mr Fisher or, and so from from the perspective, it's not clear that if the management isn't, it has not changed, then it's the police, don't see that a change in DPS will solve or be a safer option, so that starts those or two, and I'm not sure if I don't know if there's anything that the no. No, I think I think that that's are responsible for frankly that, but that is helpful.
Councillor, do you have any I I wanted to, if this is, if this is, I carry out one of the I'm, I'm aware that Mr Fish's here and we haven't actually spoken to him, and I want to say thank you for coming because, yeah yeah, I it sounds like you don't really have a reason to be here if you're not involved in the new staff manual you're here
out of a kindness, what's what's the what's your role here today?
Robert Ottaway to attend, just in case he had any questions directed towards me about the situation, about how I've got to this position, how I've instructed Dean and Lucy to get us through this path to the ultimate goal, which is obviously to,
find any operator.
I spent over a million pounds on this venture.
with various investors and clearly.
didn't manage it correctly and ultimately that's and it costs me my house, a car, my livelihood, et cetera.
so it seemed like it got to a stage that it was impossible for me to continue the two options that I had was to continue with the appeal I could have run it myself for three months, as it was claimed back some money.
and try to sell it myself without any experiencing the hospitality, I thought that probably wasn't the best solution, consulted Robert about it.
and knowing Lucy and obviously she works alongside Dean, they have years of experience in the industry, I thought it was a good idea for me to reach out to them, to try and take over the business and hopefully find somebody that would see value in it and then indeed take it over.
now for my understanding, it seemed that it would be the obvious solution, because they are running the venue that they will be in control of the venue until we are slightly unsure as to why that's being stopped and why I would still be in control of the venue as the DPS, which would mean that I would be at the venue and all being controlled with decisions at the venue, so it seemed very bizarre and now anyway the reason I'm here is
to get that point across, to understand that the the very stressful situation that I'm in.
and you all say open to any questions at.
needs to be put my warily and I do because I do appreciate you being here I I yeah. I've had businesses that have struggled, I know it's a difficult thing, so I do other things that you would like to mentally be doing, so I'm I'm glad you're here, but what's your if, if needed, I think this is relevant or I'm sorry, Mr there's nothing that is relevant. How do you perceive that the future of of of of bitcoin now, how do you think of you or you do? I cannot see the Cohen continuing as the car and I think that ultimately Dean and Lucy are there for a three month agreement process and they will find a large operator, whether it be
somebody like to act Tequila Mockingbird, for example, where they have 15 20 sites so or whoever it might be, I know that there's an offer on the table where we're going through heads of terms I can envision somebody coming in and is taking their own stamp on it, it's a fantastic location which actually was just a flat roof when I took it over so I went through the whole planning procedure got all the licences and built the venue to obviously invest a million pounds which I'm pretty much going to lose at all.
because obviously I mismanaged the the venue without any experience, so I foresee it being taken over by an experienced operator.
and probably work in a seven day operation with somebody that is probably more used to dealing with.
the police and so on,
but that's that's helpful to me and I thank you.
I'm sorry because there was only one thing, so I wanted really to to add, and I think it was possibly to pick up on your initial point, was that whether he was coming out of out as a favour, really and and so no, the the the reason that he is here is that there is a common goal that you can see from what he said in there is a common goal in getting the business moved on and,
the business continuing as a as a going concern,
is, we say, important to promote the licensing objectives, we say very important that the DPS is not Mr Fisher.
but is Mr Cockney, we would also say that the licence holders should not be global hospitality but should be should be cross collective, it's not, it's not unusual in the licensing trade for licences to be held by different bodies, sometimes it can be held by by a landlord sometimes they're held by a pubco.
sometimes they're held by the operator themselves, and what we're saying in this particular case, given the circumstances that why we are where we are, that it's appropriate that.
global hospitality are not in control of the licence which the licence holder, of course is, and the DPS is who is responsible for ensuring what goes on.
given the finding of the Committee given everything that has been sad, it cannot be right.
and and this is odd for the applicants to be saying it, but it cannot be right that if this application is refused.
on the basis that it's in the interests.
that you consider it appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to refuse this application, that it would go back to Mr. Fisher, but that's what happened but to an unjust sum, and maybe this is a are either letters this question, maybe for Mr Ward, when you say if we if we say no, then it goes back to global, that's where it is already, as there's no go back as though that's that seems running at around well s, sir, no, the current position is that the licence is held within an odd position and and no one is really are given a definitive view in relation to this, but as a matter of law,
Cronus collective limited are treated as being a licence holder.
one could say that global hospitals, hospitality are also a licence holder, but certainly chronic collective are treated as being the licence holder, and Mr Cockney is treated as being the DPS because of the way that the application is submitted once you make your decision, if you if you're not with us you reject the application because,
that that's your finding, then, of course the licence doesn't disappear, it has to be held by somebody, and it held by global hospitality, the DPS doesn't disappear because Mr Mr Fisher has never resigned as DPS, it goes back to him as being DPA, but again, but when you say goes back to in legal terms, that says you already have what you're asking is for it to change, to being somebody else
certain may be a misunderstanding, so in part, yes, but in part to know, because when you put the application in as part of that application, I ask that everybody treats Dean Cockney as the DPS and, on the basis of that, the DPS at this moment in time is deemed company. If this application is refused, he ceases to be treated as deep as the DPS. It goes to Mr. Fisher sorry, Mr Water, as I say, as I can, I direct you like me to help the children and my colleagues if you do the the the reason for this cherries because of the interim provisions, when the application was made, so when the application was put in the applicant, requested that the
transfer has an interim effects and and by.
under the Licensing Acts as LA as long as they request the interim provisions to take effect then.
that effectively makes the change it changes the DPS and the transfer during this temporary PA period until a decision is made, so in that sense.
if you've already haven't change of licence holder.
and you've already had a change of DPS on paper and and under the under the law.
S E, so that if, if you if the decision is today to refuse the applications both for the transfer and change of DPS.
then those interim provisions would cease immediately, so so so yeah, and that was correct, but actually that is the correct one we say, so the answer is yes, which things and maybe I'm sure above my pay grade. That seems very strange for what you're saying is if we have so many concerns about how distant the new organisation is from the old organisation, if we've got so many concerns that that that inhibits are saying Yes, go ahead, then it reverts to the old organisation anyway, which sounds like there's no, how do we as a Licensing Committee, then ensure that we're looking after the safety of?
that feels that feels like a gap that is a loophole in the law or something.
so sorry for your looking my way, so I felt I would.
OK, so I tell whether this will do you want to respond, or I mean all I was going to do, it is if I was going to remind the Chair, but the police did mention this earlier.
thank you about the you know, the consequences of it reverting to global hospitality, and Mr Fisher, and the the the the few, which I would remind you of.
in deliberations anyway, so I will say now that their view was that that would be a worst-case scenario rather than you know, rather than it been.
their view as yet was worth sharing and go back to the police, if you want, I don't want you know, but it's to clarify that, yeah.
that is correct and that your view is that the change actually makes it worse because they still have an element of control, but it's less clear because because the licence holder and the DBS DPS are all held over here, but there is still power over, and it's not sure what that is is that,
say it's that I, I think, it if you have Mr Fisher, who is still and global hospitality limited, who are still essentially in in controlling the owners, then the first thing that's clear is by transferring it there is at 1.00 hand there was no difference. That's step, one, there is no change now. What we succeed is in why it's worse change is because you have
in a de facto no change, but on paper.
a lack of understanding of what's actually going on and who should contact, so that's why we say it's not just the same. This change is actually a worse change from the police perspective because we don't know what going on, but while we're while we have the the league officer involved, though there is illegal, but it's it's sort of illegal point and it would be helpful for the police's perspective, to understand or and maybe have, the input is when Mr sutherland's point is that many people can be a licence holder, it could be the operator, it can sometimes be a leaseholder, it can sometimes be a pubco, for example, and what the police don't understand is if global hospitality limited is still basically the operator, they're the one two, through whom the money is going on. What basis is Cronus collective limited, a licence holder, what how are they the prim? How are they the correct person to be the premises, licence holder if they're not actually
who are they? It's just for China, that that's something that police are bit concerned is where why should they be the one listed that should face revocation, for example, if something goes wrong, if they're not the ones who are in control and are under a three-month temporary contract, and so be useful to have understanding of whether this is even a lawful change and also, if not understanding this, the reason the applicant thinks they are the appropriate people if the hospitality limited continue to have this control frankly, but that that is helpful, I'm going to invite Mrs. Allen serve response, so there's a there's a long answer and there's a short answer that one and there's a short gallon. Can I focus on that? I was going to focus on the short one of our nation. This deals with the transfer
and I will come back to the question which I posed through yourself, if I may, in relation to the DPS, the perceived problem, and I'll put it that way, I'm trying to put it neutrally, I don't see it as a problem, but the perceived problem that the police have is in respect of the transfer.
that cannot apply in relation to the DPS it cannot apply, it cannot be said that we're trying to hide things by Dean Cockney, not being or being the DPS, and saying that that should be Mr Fisher, that cannot be right if Sir and I'm putting it through you and I've not talked this through with my clients.
but if almost looking at a potential compromise, a licence which remained with global hospitality, which is not my perfect, my preference, but if it did, but the DPS was changed to deemed cockney, it may well be that that would assuage picking up your word so the the police and the police concerns and it may be something which might square the circle if if if that was appropriate though my preference obviously is to is to have my cake and to eat it now both applications granted but if that helps so that's what I'm putting on the table to see if we can discuss.
yes, it does help, sorry, sorry, it is just that, but the question we asked was what basis as Cronus collective limited, going to hold the premises licence holder. If this transfer happens, they are not. It seems to be confirmed that they're not quite the operator, because that's global hospitality limited, they are not the leaseholder, no one has suggested they are. They are not a pubco, so who are they and how can they can hold the licence or or or hold the licence or even if legally, they can, because anyone can, if that is the answer, why are they the OBR? Why does the applicant think they are appropriate, if they are not the one to whom everything is ultimately responsible? So so, just and just to remind the committee, if there is an issue, one thing the committee can do is revoke the licence, which has happened here in relation to global hospitality limited. It is that something how would that be a punishment for Niven a punishment? But how would that be the appropriate course of action if they actually don't have that much control to start with, and that's where we are very concerned and confused about it. So then how I am and I thank you, and I understand that, so how do you respond to the suggestion that the the the the big change, but not the licence or so, but there is that level of penalty, but does that it's at the beginning of this I would have said that that would be counterintuitive and that it sounds like a bad idea, but from what you've suggested, that's a better solution.
if, if you could just give me one moment to confer with whether
thank you.
so just on the DPS issue.
again, the the the first issue is this is this is the first time that we've actually starting to understand what's happening and and are are kind of asking why the committee is asking us to very much think I think, on our feet as to it, which is not the ideal way, and I do apologise, I'm going from countries with full public scrutiny and understanding, I am, and that raises, so that's. The first issue is that it would just have been helpful to have all that information so we could sit down and have a think as to whether that would be a good option and the full consequences of that are a and having that decision and quite a serious decision being made on the hoof. So to speak here is is not ideal from a public decision making point of view that the second point is
in relation to those questions and being important questions.
there is a concern.
again with with if Mr Cockneys, given this was a building.
this level of responsibility is why these questions were not answered sooner, this is again, these these questions were asked are and that is what one might, I add, a further concern of the police as to the suitability of sorry, I thought you'd better ask them or as to the suitability of a DPS if there can't be this trusting and and collaborative relationship with the police that is that is an issue.
and then I mma, the the final point is just in relation to.
in relation to the change it's yeah. Essentially it is is our first point. It's just something that the police would have liked the opportunity to think about to discuss with Mr Carney as as GPs and understand his role and understand how his three-month contract situation works and and apparently Mr Carney has confirmed as well that he's not often there, which is also something that we might want to bear in mind as a DPS, you might expect me to be on premises and he said he's rarely there because he's got a GM, so there's a lot of things that are going on a lot of moving parts, that this is a very complicated question, to answer right at this moment, from the police's perspective and I I do accept that
it's just a clever what did says on there during operational hours, so what's what open on there?
instead, sorry, yes, I think there was, I think I was asking the question about your involvement at the moment because I could correspondence, then if you'd been paid, I can understand how you could be doing work without being paid.
but sorry, Councillor.
I would like to understand what your thinking is the future of the business, because I can see that Ms deficient needs to recoup some of his money so.
something's going to be sold.
who is it going to be sold to when's it going to be sold?
are you going to appeal for the
in February for the for the licence, I mean?
sorry, I can't quite work out what's what's going on at all monument it I will try and assist, if I may, in relation to that, so the the decision in relation to the review was appealed and that,
is due to be heard by the magistrates' court at the end of February.
whilst that appeal is going on, obviously the licence continues by by law.
in respect of the the future.
the intention, as Mr Fisher, a certain also Mr Cockney, and also from the letter that you'll have seen from from Lucy, is that
the intention is, and always has been to sell the business
as a going concern, so that they
will be able to recoup as much as they can in relation to when that is sold is a very good question and
the people that we've put forward in the documentation are not the first people who hoof I've been approached or been in discussions, but we have got to a stage where we've got to heads of terms and it is obviously hoped that that deal will,
birth provision and be done to answer when I think.
obviously, they would like it to happen as soon as possible, but in reality.
I think the hope is that it will be.
signed and agreed with a view to them taking over at the beginning of January.
so that deals, I think, with the timing and the who.
but I don't have any there's no signed agreement at the moment because obviously we're still we're still in negotiations, but that's what's intended, it's never, it was never intended.
that Dean and his company would operate the premises.
on a long-term basis, it was always that they would come in.
steady the ship with a view to moving it on to to somebody else.
I can take you through if you want me to, but it isn't it's, unfortunately a lengthy response in relation to what the police say as to whether Cronin can help it can hold the licence which of course I say they can, my suggestion in relation to the DPS was trying to avoid that really are and say Look if we can go to the situation where,
the police are, and I'll spread it out, just in case I've not been clear, if the police were in a position where we can resolve the situation in the DPS, then the application with the transfer, while not ideal, could be withdrawn.
I'm spelling it out because I'm hoping that that makes it very clear is that.
I'm not sure when we say that when Lucy here says the prospective operators are highly regard, so she's she's talking about the prospective purchasers of the bill of the businesses talking about not pay as the following poll that are just coming in to operate there she is talking about people buying the business correct, we're just that say that,
it I, I think she would envisage that she is, as I say, unfortunately, she is not able to here able to be here today in order to answer those or to clarify, but the intention, what she's referring there is on the pages that follow her letter are pages which refer to the other company that's come again and that's the company that she's referring to as being a reputable company.
that's the company that she's looking at would be the subject of a new licence application, and, yes, that would be subject to discussions with the police and no doubt they would be able to satisfy the police, I have no doubt that it's a completely arm's length transaction so,
I still don't quite understand it says she has approached States April to run the business, no issues such as the progress that she's approached them to buy the best to take the vote yet provided by the business, and they they're thinking that they might.
I think it's it's beyond just the may think it's obviously the process now where we're at heads of terms, so there's obviously serious discussions going on, but none have been.
and I think it's only very recently that's happened.
I think we're not right here discussing whether this new company are good and that's nothing to do with us at the moment, so it does make, it does beg the question in my head if it sounds like we are saying and again is because there's the appeal is on going against against global and Mr Fisher which will be held held in February so the the the column will carry on trading until then anyway.
because you can legally.
so why why you try it, why are you here, what does it, your, what is it, you're trying to get to be different than I'm not going to understanding the key Keith?
the the key issue really is in relation to the control of the licence and the compliance with the licensing objectives.
sir, to a degree you are right, we could have carried on with the DPS being Mr Fisher and global hospitality carrying on with the licence, we could do that, but we actually think that the responsible thing to be doing in relation to this because we are looking at excluding Mr Fisher from the premises as we've said from the very start when when we came,
it would be inappropriate, certainly for him as licence holder or director of the licence holder company.
to be excluded from his own premises.
and also certainly as DPS it wouldn't it wouldn't work because he can't be as DPS and be the designated premises supervisor Ivy, if he's if we're saying he's not gonna go in when it's open and trading, and so from that basis, so we're saying this is why we consider the applications appropriate sorry as it does it does it also,
help with the sale does it make it clearer for the new purchasers that?
the the fact that the premises is operating, I think, helps with the sale.
that's that's obviously what they're looking at doing, but from our point of view.
to continue to operate with Mr Fisher being the DPS, I would say it would be irresponsible on our part, which is why I come back to the point that.
that you need to be satisfied.
that you consider that it's appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to refuse the transfer, but put that to one side from a focus on the DPS to refuse that Mr Cockney as the DPS, and that I can't see.
anybody coming to that conclusion that if if our choice, which it is your choice, that between Mr cabinet with his record and the fact that he's operated the premises as he has without any objection at all since September, when they will open,
choose Mr Cockney, or it's Mr Fisher, and it's it's a black and white choice, and you may feel that I'm being unfair in relation to putting it in those terms, but that is what you're asked to do, I would say by these particular,
the tests that you're required to apply.
yeah, sorry, did you want to?
there are two two points. I am kind of concerns that that we have at all confusions, maybe more, so the first is the licence holder, or sorry, Mr. Sutherland, who represents both the current and former licence holder, seems to be saying that the responsible thing in the circumstances is to transfer because the previous licence holder or global hospital's limited is irresponsible, and that was the finding of the committee of the committee which they are now appealing against. So there is a kind of inherent contradiction. So either is irresponsible and the committee came for the correct decision to revoke the licence, or he's not irresponsible and the licence should still be going on and if it can go on, then there should be no reason why global hospitality limited and Mr Fisher can continue as as DPS now, obviously the police have their own views on that and we've made that clear. The second question is the second kind of contradiction that we would assist when we recommend a potentially some legal advice being been taken for this is the premises seems to be saying that they want to sell the business as a going concern, which would seem to suggest because, as we've all agreed, it continues until the appeal that by changing,
the licence holder. This could potentially undermine the existing revocation because, as you'll see, the revocation of the licence, and it'd be good just to understand and get to make sure everyone's clear on this, because if what's happened is the licence has been revoked from global hospitality. Limited, if this change means that the licence holder can then go to the magistrates court and say Well, this is all academic because that is no longer the licence holder, there's a new one. This appeal must therefore consider a different question. It's a different person, then of course there are concerns, particularly when the police think that there is an ongoing link, so it would be good to understand whether, by changing this name, which I have just from what the premises licence holders seem to say is they seem to understand by changing the licence, this makes the business more valuable which suggests it's undermining the revocation and potentially the appeals. So it would be good to just clarify what what effect that will happen will have, because
that that is potentially a irrelevant consideration, just procedurally as to whether this decision would undermine a previous decision of this committee or not, and and leave the legal adviser would be the best person to to answer that.
there's a number of things so that when we discuss the pick, the one that, as I've understood them, this application should be determined on its own merits, so the
that the decision that you made today cannot be said to undermine the decision that was made previously, OK, she ought to consider it on its literally consider it on its merits today.
and the
in the issue, in relation to the appeal, I don't think it should be considered just complicating matters, I think.
if there was actually a legal question in there that you currently to answer, but possibly the lots of comments but yeah, so take the question about whether the appeal is affected by by the transfer, but I'll certainly I'll I've made it very clear and I'm sure Mr Ward would agree that the appeal is the appeal that continues and it will be for the licence holder to satisfy the court on the appeal that your decision is wrong now.
one of the things which has been raised, which is completely fallacious and needs to be squashed immediately, is the fact that you made the decision that you made may not have been wrong at the time that you made it, but can be considered wrong at the time that the court considers the appeal and that is so so it's quite possible for for a licence holder to appeal your decision and say,
OK, you found that global hospitality on unsuitable and we agree with you, but we're going to appeal your decision because we're going to change the circumstances so that a court when they consider that they appeal they may feel actually in all the change of circumstances that happened it's appropriate in these circumstances to allow the appeal and the licence will be in this form and it will be to such and such as a company so that's it it's not it's not illogical what we are saying.
it is, in fact it follows the licence provisions, the fact that we are applying for a transfer, I would support what Mr Ward is saying, it's completely separate, it has no effect on the appeal and, as I have indicated to you, we need to satisfy the courts that whoever's operating it is promoting the licensing objectives and that's when I say all of these questions which the police are raising they're highly relevant to the court my submission is that they're not and they're not.
irrelevant, unless you consider that they're relevant for you in relation to the decision that you have to make today, but if you consider that.
that they are relevant, obviously you can ask the questions and.
as you've heard from Mr Cockney, he will deal with it, but I still have to satisfy a court that we can promote the licensing objectives, if indeed we end up in that position.
I OK, I know it's, so I thought that the suggestion was that when it comes to an it, then I if this isn't for us to decide this as encrusted aside, that's fine.
but it is useful to me to know, I'm OK, so if we grant what's being asked for now, that is likely to have an impact on this on this hearing, because you'll be able to say when things are different, look, we've trained and if that's the motivation then at least I understand why we're here I suppose so no I would consider that we were being irresponsible if we didn't make the application because,
when we go in front of the the court, if indeed it's still.
corners collective limited, or whether it's somebody else who has taken over or whether it's resolved in some other way.
we still have to satisfy the court that we are promoting the licensing objectives, and I'm certainly there is nothing on this side of the table where we are trying to be sneaky or trying to undermine the appeal process, what we are saying is we are operating yet, but the to reflect reality and I'm trying to say to two for the moment to focus on which I'm not succeeding, but if I was focusing just on the DPS,
for Mr Cockney to be the DPS that reflects reality.
and therefore, if some agreement could be reached on that, then I would reciprocate in relation to the transfer if that helps.
thank you I, I think that does, and I'm looking forward to the bit where I get to it's a really pro.
proud my legal legal support but
Councillor, I'm looking to you now to safety, we have any further question, I'm confident that we've we've gone back and forwards quite a bit and.
I OK I, I would kind of use this bit to sort of invites, and if there's anyone on either side of the applicant or the respondent via the police, there's anything you think that that we should be considering that we haven't really.
got into yet.
now would be the time to sort of might over that point, all those questions I, I invite that off of both sides.
join just to sum up, yeah yeah, well well I I mean, I guess you don't know, if I would need to I feel like I have a fairly good understanding, we have a fairly good understanding, but you might be sitting in a pub, I've not had a chance to say this, I or the officers might be saying yeah, but I don't think that they've really gotten it
is there anything we're missing before we go into deliberation?
OK that that that would be that we could, thank you.
OK, thank you, Chair, I did start off said, one issue is quite a straightforward matter.
and and and of course there's some quite complicated issues have occurred, but I will come back to that because ultimately it is a straightforward issue that he got two applications, you have a basically a yes or no decision to make on on each application and, as Mr. Sutherland has pointed out, your options are for both applications are the same. It's grant the application or reject the application if you consider it appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective, and that is in your report is on page 5 of your report.
I trust to come to a few points have been raised during the hearing, first of all, the the licence was first granted in August 2020 again, that's in your report on page free, I can't remember off the top of my head what the COVID restrictions were at that time I am sure you'll recall were around that.
it was at a whole year and the following year the restrictions were changed on on an almost weekly basis, but it's fair to say that there were restrictions in place at that time as to what the applicants as they.
the licence holder to assert in terms of their opening.
I wouldn't dispute.
the next points being raised has been around the licence holder and who can apply for a licence, this is in your papers.
the the original applications that were made on page 14 of your main agenda, you have the transfer application form in terms of the process for who can apply for a transfer and to be a licence holder.
they simply need to make a declaration in the application form that is provided, and that is to say that if the application is granted, I would be in a position to use the premises journey application period for licensable activity or activities authorised by the licence, so that in itself can be a common qui quite a lengthy answer.
I think, in summary, it would mean that person applying for the transfer can supply alcohol at the premises or can facilitate entertainment being provided or facilitate alcohol being sold, it does not mean they themselves must be physically present.
to pour pints of beer or serve any alcohol, it just means they must be able to enable that used to take place.
and in terms of a licence holder.
whatever your decision is today, whether you grant the application for refuse, and there is nothing to stop any licence holder proceeding in place, any management structure of their choosing being a licence holder does not mean that they themselves must have run the premises, it just mean just means that they are the licence holder and they bear some responsibility if any offences occur.
but a licence holder Cam Parish, in place any one of their choosing to run the premises on their behalf.
at then terms of the DPS is a little bit less a bit more complicated that GPs are the definition of a DPS is simply the person named on the licence, there's not really much else to it, guidance does expand on it, there are some conditions that relate to the TPS,
in the alcohol cannot be sold at the premises if the DPS does not hold a personal licence, but again there's nothing to stop a DPS putting in place someone else to run the premises as long as that person holds a personal licence.
and then there was the question on the effects of the appeal, but I think the legal officer as a legal adviser to us on that.
cheers, I would suggest the comments that I wanted to make and I thought it's best, I go first, just in case either party wants to come back on these issues.
but that's really helpful, thank you.
did you need any it, can I just ask wondering?
I wonder, can I just ask, do you hold a personal licence I do yes I have for over 10 years yeah I thought so yeah
thank you so with that what I'm gonna do is invite key if you want to like a couple of minutes, maybe for the police, to to yeah to wrap up and then I'll and then I'll go to the applicant and then no more goes down.
you don't need to take on that invitation, if you don't want it was just.
there are a few points since to wrap up, so I, as has been mentioned correctly by Mr. Sutherland and by by others, at the question for the committee, is whether it is appropriate to reject or accept this applicant these applications or,
on the basis of, or of whether for the promotion of the crime and
prevention objectives. That is whether it is appropriate for you to reject it, if you consider that that would promote the crime prevention objectors. Contrary to what was said by Mr. Sutherland, there is nothing to indicate that the onus is particularly on the police. It is a decision for you to make in light of the representations you have had. The one point we will issue address in particular is is the idea that the questions that the police ask to the licence holder to Mr sutherland's were not relevant or that they're highly relevant to the police's concerns, which are that
the Minister of present Mr fisheries potential continued involvement in the business and because the main concern of the police and ha has been in terms of the history with this premises is is Mr Fisher's involvement and the fact that we consider him to be an unsuitable operator, it's therefore highly relevant to us when considering whether this is a
a variation that would promote the licensing objectives, his involvement and that that is where they they come in and they are relevant, they are relevant to our concerns and they are therefore relevant to to your decision.
or and, as I said, in short A or A and that that relates to the second question, re workers, or that the other point that is being raised by the premises licence holder, which is well, how much worse would it be, it would surely be better to transfer them away from Mr Fisher than than the current situation and as we've we've made clear and just make clear again that we consider that are at best it's no change if he's still the manager and at worst it's a worse change because it creates this lack of
understanding and transparency, now the police completely accept that it's not for the committee or anyone else to say how a business operates, but it is for the police to comment on whether the operation of the business is something that could undermine the crime prevention.
our objectives are, and that is where the police have come to, they're not trying to say we want full control, we're not trying to say we want complete separation, the police have asked what is the nature of the ongoing relationship and is this a concern given that the concern is Mr Fisher and his operation are and that's where the police have come to know from the questions that have been asked and answered, it seems that Mr fisheries business at least if not himself, has a continued stake in the business both in terms of
if the revenue going through his company and and potential again, it's not fully clear roles as ultimate manager, and that is concerning to the police because, as we said, it's the same but less transparent, and that's where the police lie now and I just for the avoidance of doubt, the police are not trying to seek a rehearing of the previous the previous decision. It's just its relevant background for four, and that's why it was put in is for the committee to understand where the nature of the police's concerns come from. It's understand it's with understanding. Why was this revoked? Who is the issue, and why do we take an issue with Mr Fisher's involvement that that's the extent to which we say it's relevant to this question or and and similarly in terms of the effects of the appeal, we're not saying this committee should take into account or and consider this issue now. We accept that these are two different decisions. You must decide on the facts here, but we're trying to understand some of the comments that were made by the applicant, and also to provide background, but the question today, and one is in everyone's interest, that that the committee gets it correct and I'm sure you'll get legal advice is whether there is appropriate to reject these proposals for the promotion of the licensing objective, namely of crime and prevention, and the police, as its submissions are that it would be because it would be the same because there is we, we say, given the answers today, there is no significant change and or potentially worse, because
we don't fully understand what's going on at and, in addition, the the the lack of.
the lack of engagement with the police raises questions about the appropriateness as well of Mr Carney as the new DPS and his team, if they cannot answer these very basic questions, even in so much as saying we do not think these are irrelevant, therefore we do not want to answer them, they're private or anything, but the failure to answer them and then also to accept down to them now raises concerns and that's that's essentially where the police are today.
thank you, that's that's very helpful and primarily Van note as soon as my questions finally, I would say to you in Sutherland just just on a couple of minutes, if you could, if you could wrap up for us.
survey.
the reason I say that the onus is on the police is the very wording of the particular section which deals with these provisions.
because it says have regard to the notice reject the application if it considers it appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to do so, therefore I would submit that, if you're not satisfied that it's appropriate for the crime prevention objective to reject the application then it would be granted so the burden is on them to establish the basis on which you are to reject it.
the presumption is that the transfer would be would be granted or the variation of the DPS would be granted, that may be semantics, sir, but it is the tests that you need to apply, and it's on that test, which I submit places you in a decision.
which is?
is it appropriate to for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to refuse the transfer and, as has been said by Mr Hawkes, the the licence holder has control of the licence they don't have to?
be physically operating it, though, in this particular case we would say that cross collective limited would be operating through the management agreement which you see, so we say we satisfy that test if.
if the transfer is not sorry, if the application is rejected, then the licence continues and it continues in the name of global hospitality limited, and this committee has at a stage found that global hospitality limited, we're not appropriate to hold a licence and we have never argued against that, and so it's. On that basis, we say that it is appropriate for the transfer to be granted because if it is not granted, then it will revert back to somebody whom the licence Committee believe is not appropriate. That argument or the argument that well it's, I think it was put that it was. It was
either the same and no change or worse, because there was a lack of transparency.
what I would submit is that if it is worse and I'm sorry, if the if there is, if it is the same and no change, then you should grant.
if it is worse, then obviously you would you would reject the application, the same goes in relation to the DPS, I think it's clearer, even in relation more clear in relation to the GPs, there is no.
opaqueness, there is no lack of transparency, the person who is in charge and responsible for ensuring compliance with the law with compliance with the licence, the promotion of the licensing objectives is Mr Cockney he has operated on the basis that Mr Fisher does not attend the premises when it's open and trading under the licence.
and Mr Fisher is here obviously confirming that.
it.
would be an odd position.
for this committee to say that.
we're going to reject this application because we consider it appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to do so, knowing full well that the person then who is the DPS who becomes the DPS is Mr Fisher, bearing in mind what happened and what led to the revocation and again, I repeat, the applicant has never challenged that we've accepted that we've we've set out what we're trying to achieve. We consider that it's appropriate and responsible for this application to be made, because it sets out who is responsible for ensuring the compliance with the licence. At this time, it has no impact on the decision in relation to the revocation
indeed, the Committee may feel that it's it was wrong of the applicant to refuse or to decline to respond to the police questions, but that I would submit is not the test that you're applying in relation to those bad information and those questions.
as I have indicated, that is information which I think is highly relevant to the court at the end of the day when they deal with the matter at this stage we are looking at the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
to say that there has been no.
involvement with the police, I think, is wrong, they have met with the police, they have offered and invited the police down to the premises to inspect the premises and check that we are doing what we said, that we would do in an open hearing in front of this committee back in September.
you may not like the approach that they've had, but that's not enough, I would say, to reject this application, the application should be granted unless you consider that it's appropriate for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to reject it, and in this particular case if you reject it.
it goes back to 2 Mr. Fisher.
so I find that that's really helpful, summing up, I think now we've still tested as much of this as a as we're able.
I'm looking out to see if there's anything else, I need to be OK, so so thank you. That now concludes the applications considerations. The sub-committee will retired to make a decision and only Councillors democratic service officers and the Council's legal adviser will be will be in the room, the decisions, the reasons any legal advice during the Sub-Committee's discussion has informed their decision will be confirmed in writing, together with information about any rights of appeal within five working days.
I say thank you for your time of the day.
thank you, thank you.