Agenda item
Application for a Temporary Event Notice for The Atrium 124-126 Cheshire Street London E2 6AG
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for The Atrium, 124-126 Cheshire Street, London E2 6AG. It was noted that an application for a counter notice had been made by PC Mark Perry representing the Metropolitan Police.
At the request of the Chair, PC Mark Perry explained that the application had given no indication of what the event actually was, which made it difficult to assess the risk and see if the necessary measures were in place to uphold the licencing objectives and prevent crime and disorder. He said that it was only when searching for the contact details that he saw that the email address was for a boxing company and then after speaking to the applicant it became clear that this was an application for a white-collar boxing event. Those were amateur boxing events where people who are members of boxing clubs turn up and engage in boxing matches against other clubs. He said that boxing events are generally high risk in terms of prevention of crime and disorder because of the nature of the event itself and the high levels of testosterone, and it has the capacity and the possibility to lead to crime and disorder.
He said that organisers for such events were usually very good at providing risk assessments, so they knew where the boxers were coming from, whether there had been any trouble at previous events,, whether adequate security plans were in place with sufficient security staff, and how to deal with instances of disorder. However, this part of the application form was left blank. PC Perry expressed his concern over this as it was incredibly risky and incredibly scary because they either hadn’t thought about it or they had chosen not to share it with the police. This made it difficult to trust them. It was also noted that since the objection there had been no contact from the applicant to supply risk assessments or security plans. PC Perry said to allow the event to go ahead would in his opinion lead to crime and disorder, even though alcohol was not being supplied.
Mr Wolid Ali, Applicant, began by giving a brief history of his experiences to date and his knowledge of the area. He said he had been a boxing coach for 25 years working with local youth in the area. He said one of his young trainee’s had completed the application and unfortunately missed out the section where it asks to describe the event. He said that PC Perry did contact him over the telephone and had been quite hostile and did not provide any help or guidance. He said that he had organised similar events and had not been required to produce in depth policies and risk assessments and there was nothing in the form asking for such information. He said he had explained the error on the form made by one of the trainees to PC Perry. He said that all event plans were sent to the venue itself who also contacted PC Perry, and said that PC Perry also disregarded their reference.
Mr Ali said that he would have security in place for 1 for every 50 persons, medical staff and doctors would be on site for any injuries etc. He said that it was a community event and participants were from the local community. It was a non-alcoholic event, he had operated a registered company for 12 years with no history of complaints and would like the TEN to proceed
In response to questions the following was noted;
- Concerns raised as to why risk assessments and security plans were not submitted with the application, if the Applicant had applied for similar events previously.
- The applicant was adamant that PC Perry was hostile and didn’t offer any guidance.
- It was confirmed that there was no requirement on the TEN form for risk assessments to be submitted.
- That there would be 8 security staff in place as well as Doctors and medical staff.
- That risk assessments had been given to the venue and the applicant wasn’t aware that there was a requirement to send these in with the TEN application.
- That he would have given a copy of the documentation if asked to but was not given an opportunity to do so by PC Perry.
- That it was unclear if the documents were asked or offered to be sent to PC Perry.
- It was confirmed that the venue operators did contact PC Perry.
- PC Perry said that had the forms been sent through prior to the meeting he would have considered it.
- That guests would be searched upon entry by registered SIA staff.
- There would be no alcohol allowed at the event and all guests would be searched on entry as a standard procedure.
- That boxers would be from around the around the country, Lancashire, London, Bradford and Manchester.
At this juncture, the Chair asked the applicant to send all the relevant risk assessments/procedures to PC Perry. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8.50pm and reconvened at 9.00pm.
PC Perry confirmed that he had received the paperwork which included the insurance documents and performance plan but nothing in relation to the security plan or risk assessment. PC Perry said he had not seen adequate information about the security in place.
Concluding remarks were made by both parties.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licensing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
Consideration
The Licensing Sub Committee heard from PC Mark Perry from the Metropolitan Police, his main objection related to the fact that no documentation was had been provided to show how the event would be managed in particular given the lack of description in the temporary event notice (TEN) and the subsequent description as a white collar boxing event. PC Perry was most concerned with the security arrangements and how potential crowd violence would be controlled. Mr Wolid Ali, Applicant told the Licensing Sub Committee that he had run these events for several years and he had never been asked for these documents previously.
During an adjournment at the meeting Mr Ali provided some documentation but nothing in writing about security arrangements. However, he did tell the Licensing Sub Committee what arrangements were in place which included 1 SIA registered door staff per 50 persons, searches to ensure weapons/alcohol are not brought into the venue.
The Licensing Sub Committee were satisfied that withstanding the shortcomings on the TEN application the applicant would ensure the licensing objectives would be promoted and were satisfied that adequate security arrangements would be in place and therefore a decision was made to refuse to issue a counter notice.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee made a majority decision;
RESOLVED
That the application for a counter-notice for The Atrium, 124-126 Cheshire Street, E2 6AG be REFUSED.
Saturday 11th December 2021 from 14:00 hours- 22:00 hours
The provision of regulated entertainment.
Supporting documents: