To consider the attached report. Background papers to follow.
The three Councillors that presided over this application were Councillors M Sartin (Chairman), P Stalker and A Lion.
The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers present and outlined the procedure that would be followed for the determination of the application.
In attendance on behalf of J26 Diner were Ms S Glover (Legal Representative), Mr N Thompson (Applicant), Ms H Rogerson (Applicant) and Mr A Grimsey (Solicitor).
In attendance on behalf of the objectors were Mr R McManus (Essex Police County Licensing Officer) and Councillor B Holmes (Waltham Abbey Town Council).
Councillor H Kane and Ms A Taylor were present as observers.
(a) Application before the Sub-Committee
The Licensing Compliance Officer, Ms D Bastick introduced the application for a Temporary Event at J26 Diner, Skillet Hill Farm, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, Essex, EN9 3QU.
The application had been made by Mr N Thompsonfor a new Temporary Event Notice, for a music event outside to include live music, food and drink on Saturday 26 June 2021 at Junction 26 Diner, Skillet Hill Farm, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, EN9 3QU. The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol and provision of regulated entertainment and had been received on the 28 April 2021.
A Temporary Event Notice for the event had been previously submitted on 31 March 2021 and had been refused at a hearing held on 14April 2021. It was noted that all applications were to be considered on their own merits.
The Responsible Authorities for the Police, the Environment and Neighbourhood Team and Public Health Unit had been consulted.
The authority had received a representation from Essex Police.
(b) Presentation from the Applicant/Representative
Ms Glover reiterated that the Sub-Committee had just considered the application to vary the licence for Junction 26 Diner, Skillet Hill Farm, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey, EN9 3QU, and they were asked to bear those considerations in mind when considering this application.
It was stated that the Sub-Committee should consider the risks associated with the TEN that had been identified by the objectors alongside all the pertinent information that had been supplied by the applicant in the supplementary agenda. From the previous application, it had become clear that the day to day business of the diner and the TEN application were for different purposes.
The two concerns which had previously resulted in the TEN application being refused were;
1. the conflict between pedestrians and HGV’s; and
2. people wandering onto the road.
Ms Glover advised that the conflict between pedestrians’ and HGV’s had been mitigated by the condition to ground all HGV’s two hours before and after the event and the Sub-Committee needed to balance the risk of pedestrians wandering into the road, as there had been no evidence to support this concern. The applicant had taken on the recommendations set out in the Risk Assessment which had been independently produce.
This TEN application included the following changes to the previously submitted application;
· The applicant’s name had been changed; and
· The inclusion of the provision of regulated entertainment (music) at the premises.
(c) Questions to the Applicant/Representative
The Legal Officer asked for clarification on when the HGV’s would be grounded. Ms Glover confirmed that movement of HGV’s would stop at 12:00 and would not occur again until 01:00 the following day, which was in line with the conditions set in the application.
The Sub-Committee asked the following questions;
· What risk assessments had been made in relation to the movement of people. Ms Glover advised that a professional company had provided a Risk Assessment for the event and the prevention of crowding, falling or tripping would be managed by the staff on site. The applicant would ensure that training, signage and the position of staff would be in place.
· Had a Risk Assessor attended the site? Mr Thompson advised that they had spent half a day onsite, which had been followed up by various conversations with Ms Rogerson to clarify any information required.
· Had the disabled access been considered, and would the gravel be removed to assist access if required? Mr Thompson advised that the disabled access had been included in the Risk Assessment and Event Safety Plan and if required the gravel would be removed. Ms Glover also commented that customers had the facility when purchasing the tickets to indicate any needs or requirements prior to attendance, which could be taken into account.
· Did ‘on the premises’ refer to the area outlined in green on page 13 of the supplement agenda? Mr Grimsey advised that this was correct, and the dimensions of this area had been included.
· What was meant by ‘details of the venue would only be supplied once tickets have been purchased’? Mr Thompson advised that it was common practise in the event industry for venues to only supply the address once payment and details of the attendees had been obtained. Ms Glover also added that it was to prevent people turning up to the premises speculatively.
· How robust were the barriers being erected for the event? Mr Thompson advised that they were specifically designed for these types of events.
· Had a Safety Advisory Group (SAG) taken place? Ms Rogerson advised that it had.
· Would catering vehicles be in attendance? Ms Rogerson advised that catering vehicles would not be attending, and catering would be provided onsite.
· What was the target age group of the attendees? Mr Thompson advised 25-40 year old.
Mr McManus asked the following questions;
· What were the security measures for the event? Ms Rogerson advised that there were ten security staff with a total of thirteen staff.
· How many first aiders would be in attendance? Ms Rogerson advised that two of their current staff were first aid trained and an additional first aider would be employed from an agency.
· Would any of the staff cover multiple tasks? Ms Rogerson advised that the banksman were trained first aiders, although an agency first aider would be employed and stationed within the café area of the premises.
· Would there be enough previsions in the local area for attendees requiring taxis at the end of event ? Ms Rogerson advised that she had contacted local taxi firms in Loughton, who could provide around 50 if required, as well as Uber. Mr Thompson advised that there were two exits from the site, and it was expected that not all attendees would be exiting the site at the same time due to the type of event.
(d) Presentation from the Objector’s
Mr McManus advised that the objections remained the same, as the previous application but reiterated the various points;
· the Police incident from August 2020;
· the proximity of the M25 and the potential for pedestrians under the influence of alcohol to wonder near or onto this road;
· concerns about vehicle movements and the safety of pedestrians had been addressed by the restriction to HGV’s before and after the event
· that the security measures were satisfactory.
· That staff would be trained and in place;
· Availability of taxi had been investigated; and
· There was limited public transport available near the site.
(e) Questions to the Objectors
There were no questions.
(f) Closing Statements from the Applicant/Representative
Ms Glover concluded that the majority of the Police concerns had been mitigated by the Risk Assessment and Event Plan. There had been no evidence produced to substantiate the claims from August 2020 and the only issue that remained was the potential of pedestrians wondering onto the M25, which required a balance judgement of the risks, of this issue against the comprehensive Event Plan that had been produced for this application.
(g) Consideration of the Application by the Sub-Committee
The Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would go into private deliberations to consider the application. During their deliberations the Sub-Committee received no further advice from the Legal Officer present. The Sub-Committee noted all of the submissions and representations, both oral and written which had been made in relation to the application and considered what was appropriate to promote the four licensing objectives and the relevant parts of the Council’s Licensing Policy and the Home Office’s guidance.
That the application for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for JUNCTION 26 DINER, SKILLET HILL FARM, HONEY LANE, WALTHAM ABBEY, EN9 3QU between 14:00 until 23:00on 26 June 2021 be GRANTED for the sale of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment.
The Sub-Committee had taken into account the four licensing objectives, the relevant written and oral representations, the Council’s Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s Guidance and resolved that it was not appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to serve a counter notice.
The Sub-Committee gave full consideration to the objection from the Essex Police Licensing Unit with regards to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance but had decided that the licensing objectives were not sufficiently undermined by the holding of the proposed event.
However, in order to minimise the potential for the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and protection of children from harm we have also determined to attach conditions as per the variation of the existing Premises licence as agreed on 13 May 2021.