Agenda item

In arriving at its decision, the Sub-Committee took into account the relevant representations submitted both in writing and orally at the hearing. The Sub-Committee was also made aware that the following were relevant:  The following sections of the Council’s Licensing Policy:

· Section 4 – Fundamental Principles

· Section 10 – Temporary Event Notices

· Section 12.1 – The Licensing Objectives – Prevention of crime and disorder

· Section 12.2 – The Licensing Objectives – Public safety

· Section 12.3 – The Licensing Objections – Prevention of public nuisance

The following sections of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under

Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 were relevant:

· Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 – Crime and disorder

· Paragraphs 2.7 to 2.14 – Public safety

· Paragraphs 2.15 to 2.21 – Public nuisance

· Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.40 – Temporary Event Notices.

The Sub-Committee received a report from the Licensing Officer that a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) had been received on 15 March 2021 from a Mr Nicholas Baker.  The notice was for an event to be held on Saturday 31 July 2021 from 12:00 hrs to 23:00 hrs.  The licensable activities included in the notice were the sale by retail of alcohol, and the provision of regulated entertainment at Delta Force Paintball, Old Lane, Ockham.  The Sub-Committee noted that events held under the authority of a temporary event notice were not subject to conditions, unlike those that could be volunteered or imposed on a premises licence.  Surrey Police and Environmental Health had objected to the event on the grounds that the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives would not be met.  This was owing to the lack of details relating to the management and controls of this event.  Also, there was no information supplied regarding set up of the event, volume of the music and whether any consideration had been given to preventing a nuisance to residential properties in the locality.

The Sub-Committee was advised that if it did not consider it appropriate to give a counter notice, the premises user would be entitled to hold the event as stated in the notice. No conditions could be attached to the notice because conditions can only be attached if they are already on an existing premises licence for that premises, and the existing condition would address any of the concerns raised by the relevant parties.  There was no existing premises licence in respect of the premises. If the Sub-Committee decided to give a counter notice it must give the counter notice and a notice stating the reasons for the decision to the premises user, Surrey Police and Environmental Health.

The Sub-Committee noted the following points made by the applicant in support of the notice:

·         In relation to concerns raised by Surrey Police regarding drunkenness and anti-social behaviour, contact had been made with Churchill Security who would provide 5 security guards.   They would be accompanied by stewards who would consist of friends or family.

·         A twelve-foot security fence was already in place and it was therefore very difficult for people to scale and obtain illegal entry to the event.

·         Security would be in place at the perimeter fence, ensuring that people’s tickets were checked as they came through the gates as well as issuing them with wrist bands.  In addition, no alcohol or drugs would be permitted to be brought into the site and would be controlled by carrying out bag checks.

·         All persons entering the site would have to show ID to confirm that they were aged 18 or over. 

·         Stewards would help manage traffic entering and exiting the site.

·         The map provided as part of the agenda papers had not accurately cited the exact location of the event.  Taking that into account, the map had a scale of 1:5000 and therefore the nearest residential property was approx. 2 miles away.

·         Two first aiders would be onsite to help manage medical assistance as required.

·         With regard to concerns that the site was located off a National Speed limit road with no areas of pavement, stewards in hi-vis tops would be dispatched along the road to help direct traffic onto the site. 

The Sub-Committee noted the following objections made by Sergeant Ian Manners on behalf of Surrey Police:

·         No event plan had been submitted.

·         Whilst the user had good intentions, a lot of assumptions had been made with regard to the management of the event.

·         Stewards would need to receive specialist training if managing traffic on a National Speed Limit road and a Traffic Regulation Order might be required.

·         In respect of Covid, how were the numbers of people attending the event going to be effectively managed?

·         Five Security Guards was not enough to deal with 450 people. 

·         How was the organiser going to deal with drunk people potentially stumbling onto a National Speed Limit Road?

·         Fire risk and evacuation procedures had not been addressed.

·         It would be better to apply for a premises licence where conditions could be applied and the event managed appropriately.

The Sub-Committee noted the following submission made by Colin Whitear, Licensing Officer for Surrey Police:

·     He was in agreement with all of the points raised by Sergeant Manners.  No detailed event plan or risk assessments had been submitted and much more detail was required for an event of this size.

The Sub-Committee noted the following objection made by Ian Croll, Environmental Health Officer for Guildford Borough Council:

·         There was a lack of information in relation to the provision of amplified music, its location, how many speakers would be used, the volume, testing and if neighbouring residents had been notified.

·         Residential dwellings were noted to be located only 500m away from the site itself and it was therefore a concern that the event would be a public nuisance. 

The Sub-Committee raised the following concerns:

·         The lack of an event plan was a big concern.

·         What controls were in place for accessing the site, what would happen if people were ejected from the site?

·         49 Stewards was not enough people to effectively manage an event of this scale.  What training and experience did the stewards have?

·         It was anticipated to be a long day, therefore, adequate breaks needed to be incorporated with enough stewards available to manage the event at any one time.

·         How would litter be dealt with? How many litter bins were onsite? Had Environmental Cleansing at Guildford Borough Council been contacted to collect the litter?

·         What would drinks be served in?  Could people walk offsite with drinks?

·         Two medical staff onsite was not perceived as adequate to cover the number of people attending the event.

In response to the concerns raised by the Sub-Committee, the organiser made the following comments:

·         He recognised that on reflection, they should have put more thought into the logistics of submitting a Temporary Event Notice and the associated requirements. 

·         The organiser’s mother stated that she had trained stewards previously for a horse show event.

·         A Risk Assessment would be carried out.

·         A total of 49 Stewards was perceived as an adequate number of people to cover a small area on a rotational basis.

·         Hundreds of litter bins were located throughout the site, thanks to the previous infrastructure left behind by Delta Force Paintball. 

·         Litter would be collected up and disposed of by the organiser and stewards after the event.

·         Alcohol would be served in plastic cups and would not be allowed to be taken offsite.  Cans would be opened before giving them to customers.

·         He recognised that they had come unprepared in terms of an event management plan and would appreciate some guidance from the relevant authorities on what was required.

The Chairman invited the Responsible Authorities to sum up.  Surrey Police reiterated their concerns regarding a lack of a detailed Event Management Plan which in turn would be detrimental to public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder.  Environmental Health stated that they would be happy to liaise with the organiser on highlighting relevant guidance in terms of managing noise and prevention of public nuisance to neighbouring residents.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED: That it was appropriate to issue a counter notice and therefore the event could not go ahead.

The Licensing Sub Committee considered both written and oral representations from Surrey Police and Environmental Health and oral representations from the organiser and his mother.  The Sub-Committee considered that the lack of a detailed Event Management Plan, as highlighted by Surrey Police and Environmental Health, meant that the licensing objectives of prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder and public safety would be significantly undermined.  These concerns were underpinned by the fact that no risk assessment had been submitted and there were no plans with regard to how to manage numbers in a covid-safe environment.  It was also unknown what relevant experience the stewards to be employed had in managing an event such as this.  The concerns raised by Environmental Health about noise, speaker location and proximity to neighbours had not been successfully addressed.  Both Surrey Police and Environmental Health would continue to work with the applicant to ensure that licensing objectives were achieved should he wish to submit a further TEN accompanied by the appropriate information required.  The Sub-Committee therefore considered it appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to issue a counter notice so that the event could not go ahead.