At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for an Adult Gaming Centre for Palace Amusements, 450 Bethnal Green Road, London E2 0AG. It was noted that objections had been received from the Ward Councillor, Councillor Kevin Brady, and from two local residents in relation to protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime. 

At the request of the Chair, Mr Philip Kolvin, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant gave a brief background of the company history and management team, it was noted that the Applicant had 10 venues, and each venue was visited by the management team at least twice a week and when new venues are open, one of the team would be there everyday to ensure that the premises and the systems were running smoothly. He then explained the Applicant’s track record and ability to comply with the licensing objectives under the Gambling Act 2005. Mr Kolvin stated that staff were trained regularly, risk assessments were carried out, and there were strict policies in place, such as Challenge 25 and independent verification checks by mystery shoppers.

Mr Kolvin explained that the management team take the responsibility to understand the locality and put in place appropriate protective measures and, as a result, the applicant’s venues operate without significant issues: they don't suffer crime and disorder, they don't have trouble with children trying to enter the premises, and consequently none of the Applicant’s venues had never been subject to a review. They were experienced at operating in challenging areas.

Due to good planning, good training, good procedures, proper management and thorough oversight they operated in a safe manner without troubling the police or other responsible authorities providing a safe welcoming clean well supervised environment for their customers and that has been the secret of their success. He explained that the key rules for these premises are that no alcohol is permitted and there are no children allowed in the premises.

Mr. Kolvin explained the nature of the Premises and the differences between it and a betting shop. These included a staff presence on the floor and not behind a counter as they would be on the trading floor ready to greet anyone who walks in. This was strengthened by it being a  proposed condition. There were no TVs or communal seating. The number of customers at any given time tended to be small, approximately 10 people. This meant that crime and disorder was not an issue. Mr. Kolvin also informed the Sub-Committee that no other AGC in the area had any additional conditions imposed on their licence. The Applicant, however, had volunteered a number of conditions, which would be complied with, and agreed with the Licensing Authority, which would potentially raise standards in the area.

Mr Kolvin stated that there were no objections from the Police or any other responsible authorities who were guardians of crime disorder and community safety, local amenity, child protection or any agent or treatment facility or hostel which safeguards vulnerable people. He said there were no representations before the sub-committee from expert authorities or agencies because there was no evidence that the premises could cause harm or any suggestion that the applicant was not a good operator in terms of promoting the licencing objectives, or that these premises are unsuitable. The premises would be well lit and well equipped and would have safety features such as CCTV cameras, door panic alarms, etc. There was no evidence that the risk assessment was insufficient. 

Mr. Kolvin then addressed the representations briefly, which in his view were arguably not relevant to the licensing objectives. He said representations raised concerns that there were just too many gambling establishments and there should be fewer or that gambling provides insufficient benefit to the area he said they were focused on need, which was relevant to planning rather than to gambling. He said there was no evidence that the grant of this application would undermine the licensing objectives and there was no other similar premises that had the conditions being offered, and therefore respectfully urged The Sub-Committee to grant the application.

Members then heard from Councillor Kevin Brady. He clarified that he did not have any moral objection to the application itself but believed that it didn’t  meet the licensing objectives and in particular the objective to protect children and vulnerable people. He expressed concern as to who those vulnerable people were, and would include people who would gamble beyond their means or people who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about their gambling. Cllr Brady then explained the makeup of the area, an area that has undergone significant change and a active High Street full of shops and fairly busy with a fairly significant residential area with high levels of social housing both the North and South of that particular part and some of those who live in some of the most deprived housing in the borough. He said that statistics confirmed that the area suffers from high levels of anti-social behaviour (ASB). He attended the local Police Safer Neighbourhood Team meetings, which also confirmed the problem with ASB in the area. ASB issues were also referred to by one of the other objectors too. Bethnal Green Road also had a lot of drinking establishments and was close proximity to homelessness services and hostel as well as other organisations nearby that offers support to the vulnerable.

Cllr Brady disputed the fact that the operation of the premises met the licensing objectives. He explained that there was a significant number of schools in the location, with secondary schools and curious teenagers asking questions and wanting to explore the prospect of gambling if they see family members using the facility etc. children living in families with high levels of deprivation families that might themselves take part in gambling and therefore did not believe that the licensing objectives would be met.

Cllr Brady concluded by saying that there was no need for another gambling establishment, there were high levels of ASB in the area, an area which was in the cumulative impact zone and which already experiences public nuisance and crime and disorder.

In response to questions the following was stated;

-       That a number of factors were considered which inform where gambling premises are located, such as the need to find a premises which is the right shape and with the right services and facilities, whether they were available on leasehold terms which are commercially attractive, and generally AGCs site themselves in areas of high footfall such as High Streets. 

-       That staff would be employed locally.

-       Concerns were raised that the area was not suitable for an adult gaming centre, as there was a large night time economy, high levels of anti-social behaviour and did not meet the licensing objectives in that area.

-       The close proximity to schools were noted.

-       That AGCs were located on High Streets and that staff training and conditions, such as no alcohol being permitted within the Premises, meant that issues were not likely to arise. Children walking past a gambling premises was not of itself a problem.

-       That alcohol is not sold at the premises, no alcohol is permitted at the premises, people who are intoxicated for whatever reason are not permitted into the premises and there were rules and procedures about that in my applicant’s operational policies.

-       That all policies would be enforced, audited and complied with and there was no evidence that the applicants breach the rules.

-       That a Challenge 25 policy would be in operation.

-       The applicant would not object to a condition to have no more than 3 smokers to be permitted to smoke outside the premises at any one time.

-       The applicant would also not object to a condition to ensure that gambling machines were not visible from outside the premises if a licence were to be granted. 

Concluding remarks were made by both parties.

The Licensing Objectives

Consideration

The Sub-Committee considered an application by East Kent Leasing Ltd. (“the Applicant”) for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Palace Amusements, 450 Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0HG (“the Premises”). The Premises would operate as an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) and would do so for 24 hours per day.

The application attracted representations from the Ward Councillor, Councillor Kevin Brady, and from two local residents.

The Sub-Committee heard from Philip Kolvin QC on behalf of the Applicant. He explained the Applicant’s track record and ability to comply with the licensing objectives under the Gambling Act 2005. The Sub-Committee was told that members of the management team visited all their premises at least twice-weekly and that when a new premises is opened, one of them would be present every day for an initial period. Staff were trained regularly, risk assessments were carried out, and there were strict policies in place, such as Challenge 25 and independent verification checks by mystery shoppers. The Applicant had never been subject to a review and was experienced at operating in challenging areas.

Mr. Kolvin explained the nature of the Premises and the differences between it and a betting shop. These included a staff presence on the floor and no TVs or communal seating. The number of customers at any given time tended to be small. This meant that crime and disorder was not an issue. Mr. Kolvin also informed the Sub-Committee that no other AGC in the area had any additional conditions imposed on their licence. The Applicant, however, had volunteered a number of conditions, which would be complied with, and which potentially raised standards in the area.

Mr. Kolvin addressed the representations briefly, which in his view were arguably not relevant to the licensing objectives. They were focused on need, which was relevant to planning rather than to gambling. Fundamentally, however, there was no evidence that the grant of this application would undermine the licensing objectives. No other similar premises had the conditions being offered, and he submitted that there was no basis on which the Sub-Committee could refuse the application.

Cllr. Brady addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that he did not believe that the Premises would meet the licensing objectives. The area suffered from anti-social behaviour (ASB), with drinking establishments and homelessness hostels nearby, as well as a number of schools. He attended the local Police Safer Neighbourhood Team meetings, which confirmed the problem with ASB in the area. ASB issues were also referred to by one of the other objectors.

Members queried the proximity of the Premises to schools and within the Bethnal Green Cumulative Impact Zone. Mr. Kolvin commented that AGCs were inevitably located on High Streets and that staff training and conditions, such as no alcohol being permitted within the Premises, meant that issues were not likely to arise. Children walking past a gambling premises was not of itself a problem. A family going to the seaside would inevitably go into family entertainment centres, which had arcade games and penny falls. An AGC was completely different and children simply did not want to go into them. Even if they did, however, they would be noticed by staff and promptly challenged. Cllr. Brady confirmed that he did not believe that children would go into the Premises, but that children would see it and see gambling as acceptable. Similarly, he was concerned that curious teenagers might be encouraged to gamble by, for example, parents going in to such a premises and leaving their children outside.

During the course of the hearing members queried whether there could be a limit on the number of people smoking outside the Premises. Mr. Kolvin explained that this tended not to be an issue with AGCs as it might be with a pub, but if the Sub-Committee was minded to impose a condition it was not objected to and he suggested a limit of three. There was also discussion as to whether or not it would be appropriate to require that gambling not be visible from the exterior. Mr. Kolvin commented that there was no consistency between authorities and that if the Sub-Committee were minded to impose such a condition, the Applicant did not object. 

The Sub-Committee paid careful attention to the oral and written representations made by the parties, including those from the residents who had not attended the hearing. The Sub-Committee understood that the starting point of the legislation was that it should “aim to permit” the use of the premises for gambling and that a refusal of the application would be a measure of last resort when no other measure would suffice to ensure that the licensing objectives were not undermined.

To the extent that the representations made reference to the need for another gambling premises, they were disregarded by the Sub-Committee. None of the responsible authorities had objected to the application. Whilst this was not determinative, the Sub-Committee would have expected there to have been some representations if premises of this nature gave rise to concerns.

Similarly, the Premises’ location within the CIZ and the ASB issues that might arise generally within the area were not matters that the Sub-Committee could take into account, unless and to the extent that they related to the Premises and would or would be likely to adversely impact upon the licensing objectives.

Notwithstanding the references in the representations to the number of gambling premises in the area, none of the representations evidenced any issues arising in connection with any of those premises. That being so, there was no basis on which the Sub-Committee could reasonably conclude that these Premises would give rise to any problems. Insofar as the representations expressed concern about the possible impact upon the licensing objectives, the Sub-Committee considered that these were far too speculative and unsupported by evidence. Further, even if it could be satisfied that the grant of this licence would or was likely to give rise to problems, the conditions volunteered by the Applicant would address those.

The Sub-Committee considered that it was appropriate in the circumstances to impose two additional conditions as discussed. Whilst the Sub-Committee noted that nuisance generally was not a licensing objective under the 2005 Act, there was a possibility that some patrons would exit temporarily to smoke and that this had the potential, especially later in the evening, to give rise to noise nuisance or to add to the existing problems within the CIZ. It was proportionate to require this to apply only between certain hours and the hours during which voluntary conditions 7 and 8 applied (22:00 hours to 04:00 hours) seemed was appropriate. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that this condition was in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 9.31 of the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to Local Authorities as this directly related to the premises, the locality, the local risks, and the type of licence applied for.

Similarly, the Sub-Committee considered, in all the circumstances, that it was appropriate to impose a condition that gambling should not be visible from the exterior of the Premises, so as to minimise the risk of children or vulnerable people being tempted to enter and gamble when they might not otherwise be minded to do so.

Having considered the options available to it, the Sub-Committee decided to grant the application as sought and with the imposition of the additional conditions volunteered by the applicant and the additional conditions discussed during the course of the hearing:

Therefore, Members made a decision and the decision was unanimous. Members granted the application with conditions. 

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;

RESOLVED

That the application for a New Premises Licence for an Adult Gaming Centre for Palace Amusements, 450 Bethnal Green Road, London E2 0HG be GRANTED with conditions.    

Conditions

1)    The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Tower Hamlets Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31 day period.

2)    A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

3)    A Think 25 policy shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

4)    Staff shall have a clear view of the entrance from the sales desk, if one exists, and shall circulate the premises to enable good visibility and supervision of the machines and premises.

5)    Refresher training shall take place every six months, all training shall be documented, and records kept at the premises. These records shall be made available to the Police and/or Local Authority upon request and shall be kept for at least one year.

6)    A magnetic locking device, commonly referred to as a Maglock shall be installed and maintain on the main entrance/exit to the premises which shall be operated thought out the day by staff at their discretion.

7)    When the hours are trading between the hours of 22:00 hours and 04:00 hours the entrance will be locked with admittance to the premises only by video and buzzer using the maglock.

8)    There shall be two or more members of staff on the shop floor when the premises are trading between 22:00 hours and 04.00 Monday to Sunday.

9)    The licensee shall refuse entry to customers who appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

10)Signage shall be displayed in the front window, informing if they are seen drinking alcohol or taking drugs outside the venue, they will be refused entry.

11)Between 22:00 hours and 04:000 hours no more than three patrons at any one time shall be permitted to smoke outside the premises.

12)Gambling taking place within the premises shall not be visible from outside the premises.