Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that all parties had been notified of the meeting either by email of in writing.

The police representative reported that Fabric were exceptionally good in their management practices however the review had been submitted as there had been a recent history of eight incidents at the premises, including four which resulted in the death of patrons after having taken illegal drugs.  The most recent deaths had occurred in July and September 2014.  Whilst it was accepted that searches carried out at Fabric had satisfactory procedures, there had been an increase in the risk to public safety and the police had therefore put forward the minimum of an additional four conditions that were considered necessary.  The CCTV and the search conditions proposed had been accepted, whilst the installation of an ID scanning system and use of a drugs dog were under negotiation with the licensee.  It was noted that the licensee did not have an objection in principle, however, had concerns about the practical implications of deployment of drug dogs.

The press and public were excluded at this stage of the meeting to consider the exempt papers and upon return the Sub-Committee asked questions of the police.

In response to questions, the police informed the Sub-Committee that generally engagement with the licensee had been good, however recently, where efforts to improve the security and search regime were required, there had been delays in making progress.  Police dogs were successfully used around crowded transport hubs.  The police did not consider that deployment of drugs dogs for two hours only was sufficient and requested that dogs be used for 50% of the hours of operation to allow flexibility.  It was expected that the person would walk pass the dog rather than for the dog to pass along the queue.  A static position would not give off a scent. The police considered that reducing the age of patrons to 18 would not reduce the drug issue at this stage so was no longer a condition that was being sought.  The police considered that the licensee would be able to source dogs in the private sector.

A local resident who lived two minutes from Fabric, reported that the nature of the clientele had changed over the years.  Noise nuisance on Friday and Saturday evenings was intolerable and there were no security staff around to deal with any issues in the early hours of the morning.  The Sub-Committee noted that this was an issue every weekend and could happen at any time throughout the night.  They had regular contact with the licensing team and had attended meetings with Fabric but the security staff were not employed in this area where clientele may take drugs.  It was reported that issues had become worse in the last year. Another local resident agreed and reported that he had often been offered drugs in the area. There was evidence of crime and disorder and also public nuisance with vomiting/urination and noise from patrons.  The siting of public toilets had not made any improvement to the situation. 

A resident, speaking in favour of Fabric, reported that the management of Fabric made more effort than most clubs. He considered that the use of ID scanners was unnecessarily harsh for those who were just going out for a good time.  When police were informed about drug issues this had been held against Fabric.  He had been offered drugs on one occasion in the premises, which the security team then dealt with immediately and he had never witnessed sales of drugs on the premises.  He had a degree of sympathy with residents but stated that you should expect some issues when living in a central London location.

There was a ten minute comfort break at this stage of the meeting.

Paddy Whur, the licensee’s representative reported that the licensee had been at Fabric for 15 years.  It was accepted that on most issues of management there had been no problems.  The death of patrons had made an impact on staff and they had been offered counselling.  Fabric was supported on Facebook and a petition in support had been signed by over 25,000 members.  This was one of the top three clubs in the world and was the best British large nightclub.  There were concerns regarding the use of drugs dogs, not because they did not want them but because the quality of cover was proving difficult to find. Correct protocols were required and he considered that the condition was impractical to accept. They wanted to use best practice when it came to the use of drug dogs. Regarding the ID scan, they did not consider the need for law abiding citizens to be scanned.  A leading company in the use of ID scanners was still having teething problems.  Foreign documents were not recognised by the scanner.  Currently, if patrons were required to produce ID they are moved to a search area and a more detailed search was conducted.  It was noted that the premises were drug swabbed in September.  This produced negative swabbing apart from in one place on the dance floor in Room 1. In respect of the noise representation, there had been no evidence of noise escape .  The smoking area at the rear was well supervised and it was asked that additional conditions not be imposed.  Resident objections could not be attributed to one particular club. 

In response to questions it was considered that the legal issues regarding the use of dogs could be resolved.  A company to provide drug dogs was difficult to source.  The vast majority were not trained to police dog level and current police dogs could not be used.  The licensee wanted to introduce the use of dogs in a proper manner. Cost was not an issue.  ID checking was currently carried out on an intelligence led basis.  Patrons had been banned from the premises and dealt with professionally. Detailed medical records were broken down by age and those patrons aged between 18-21 were not considered to be at additional risk. A last entry time was not appropriate to be included as a condition as it had no basis in the review. Fabric had not alerted police to all incidents as there was an assumption that the ambulance would call the police. Now that Fabric was aware that this was not the case this would now be done.  The door supervisors did patrol 150 yards away from the club and it was stated that no other operator did that.  The extent of the patrol had to stop somewhere. There was an issue regarding the insurance of staff once outside the immediate vicinity of the venue.  The praise received of their paramedic staff in the venue was noted.  Fabric were not stating that they would not use drug dogs but wanted to ensure that they were most effective.  It was noted that Professor Measham, who would be advising on drugs dog protocols, was available from January.

Regarding the licensing authority draft proposed conditions and the response from the licensee on pages 135 – 144 of the supplementary papers the Sub-Committee noted the following:-.

Condition 1.  The licensing authority accepted this amendment.

Condition 3. The licensing authority did not accept this amendment, stating that other venues vetted all customers.

Condition 5.  The licensing authority stated that they would like to see this retained. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee would like this condition to be retained on a voluntary basis.

Condition 9.  The licensing authority accepted this amendment.

Condition 12. The licensing authority considered this condition would be helpful whilst the licensee considered it to be onerous.

Condition 13 and 23.  The wording to be ‘subject to police clarification’ was to be added to the condition.  This wording was agreed by all parties.

Condition 31. For discussion.

Condition 39. The licensing authority agreed to supply the licensee a copy of the Technical Standard for the Places of Entertainment.

In summary, the police stated that the proposed measures were proportionate due to the serious incidents.  They had concerns that the ID scanner, if not used for all customers, would be left to the judgement of staff. The use of drug dogs was raised four months ago which was considered sufficient time for details to be drawn up.  Their own expert considered that the use of two dogs was ample and not seven, as stated by the licensee.

The noise team stated that the proposed conditions were in order to modernise the original conditions as these were old and written prior to the smoking ban.  No calibration certificate had ever been received. 

A local resident considered there had been a lack of engagement with residents.  He had no confidence in the ability of Fabric to manage noise nuisance. He considered that people who caused the nuisance were Fabric patrons and not from another venue. 

A representative speaking in support of Fabric considered that they were willing to engage with residents and this tallied with his own experience with the venue.

The licensee’s representative stated that the issue was being taken very seriously by the venue. The Home Office guidance stated that conditions must be proportionate, justifiable and capable of being met.  The venue was not responsible for patrons who were not in the immediate vicinity of the premises.  This operator was exceptional.  They had not contacted police as they were not aware that this was the correct procedure, but would now do so.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence in respect of Fabric, 77a Charterhouse Street, EC1 be modified with the addition of conditions as outlined in Appendix 4 on page 195 of the agenda, including the conditions proposed by the licensing authority on pages 162-170 of the agenda subject to the amendments relating to the licensing authority proposed conditions detailed below:-

Condition 1.  Final paragraph to read.  In addition, queuing arrangements shall be in accordance with any plan agreed in writing to the venue operators by Local Authority licensing officers or the Metropolitan Police.

Condition 2.  First paragraph to read. No patrons shall be admitted or re-admitted to the premises unless they have passed through a metal detecting search arch or scanned with a search wand.

Conditions 13 and 23.  Add the wording ‘subject to a threshold agreed by the police’.

Condition 31.  Add the wording ‘if an ambulance is called and customer taken to hospital the police must be notified’.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee noted that the police recognised that the premises were well managed but that customers at Fabric are exposed to an exceptional risk in relation to illegal drugs.  The premises have search procedures in place but recent incidents indicate that these procedures are not sufficient.

The Sub-Committee noted that Fabric in principle did not object to the use of a drugs dog at the premises but requested additional time in order to put a drugs dog into operation.  The police submitted that the highest degree of certainty was required as to when the drugs dog would be implemented at the premises, in order for the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective to be promoted. The Sub-Committee decided that the condition proposed by the police would mitigate further risk to Fabric’s customers and that there should be no delay in implementing this.  The proposed condition was therefore proportionate and justifiable.  The Sub-Committee noted the evidence of Inspector O’Hara and was satisfied that Fabric would be able to source the required drug dogs in the private sector.

The Sub-Committee noted that Fabric had ID scanners in place and that they were looking for the proposed police condition to be amended to give them some discretion regarding customer ID scanning.  The Sub-Committee noted that, with regards to invasion of privacy, the police would only download information from Fabric ID scan if an offence was committed at the premises and that introduction of judgement or intelligence led discretion would undermine the purpose of the ID scanning machine.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the condition proposed by the police was proportionate and would promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee noted that in accordance with condition 19 of the current premises licence, the venue should have an Operating Plan which was updated sporadically to reflect new operating procedures.   The conditions proposed by the licensing authority set out in Appendix 2 would form the new Operating Procedures for the venue.

Fabric submitted a document detailing their proposed changes to Appendix 2 and this was considered as follows:- 

·        Condition 1.  The proposed amendment was accepted.

·        Condition 3.  This amendment was refused as the Sub-Committee accepted the police condition regarding ID scanners.

·        Condition 5.  This condition was to be included because the Sub-Committee noted that the provisions were already in place and had been developed over a number of years.  The Sub-committee noted the licensing authority’s request that the arrangements should be retained and that, in order to promote the licensing objective to prevent public nuisance, it was proportionate and justifiable for this condition to be imposed.

·        Condition 9.  This condition to be removed.

·        Condition 11.  This amendment was refused as the Sub-Committee accepted the police condition regarding the use of drug dogs.

·        Condition 12.  The condition was to be included because the Sub-Committee noted that the premises already undertake monitoring at the premises. The licensing authority submitted that the proposal was in accordance with good practice and would ensure that the licensing objective to promote public safety would be promoted.

·        Condition 13 and 23. Amendments proposed by the Sub-Committee were accepted by the licensing authority and the police.

·        Condition 31.  The Sub-Committee noted that Fabric were now aware that they were required to take this action and the Sub-Committee therefore concluded that it was proportionate to include it as a condition. 

·        Condition 39. The Sub-Committee noted that the Technical Standards for the Places of Entertainment is a document that the Council still works to and Fabric accepted this condition should remain in place.

The Sub-Committee noted the representation from the noise team and that the proposed conditions would modernise the operating procedures in relation to noise control.  The Sub-Committee noted that, when the current conditions were originally written, the smoking ban in public places was not in place.  The Sub-Committee also noted the evidence of the interested parties regarding noise breakout from the premises and the Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that the proposed conditions were proportionate and justifiable to promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered the Home Office guidance, paragraphs 11.24 – 11.28 regarding reviews arising in connection with crime.  The Sub-Committee noted that where the crime prevention objective was being undermined, revocation should be seriously considered.  However, following submissions of all the parties, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that, in this case, the licensing objectives would be promoted with the imposition of the additional conditions.

Note of the Sub-Committee

At the hearing, Fabric provided interested parties with contact details for their management to deal with public nuisance issues. This was welcomed by the Sub-Committee.