Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant (South Wales Police), representations made by the respondent, and all other oral and written representations: 1. Accepted that there had been some failings at the venue, but on this occasion did not resolve to remove the DPS they were satisfied that these matters were being adequately addressed through the measures outlined by the business; 2. Recognised that the business had moved away from using standard glass vessels, and did not consider it proportionate to attach the police condition in relation to non-glass vessels; 3. Did not consider it proportionate to mandate the use of ID scanners through a licensing condition at this time; 4. Felt that the police’s suggested condition around designated walkways would be impracticable and not appropriate. The wording of the 16 conditions that had been accepted by the licensee were accepted, with the added amendment to condition 10 (bullet point D) to state: ‘All incidents of disorder which the premises is aware, including sexual assault’. The Sub Committee also accepted the premises plan as detailed on page 240 of the bundle.
There were none.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant (South Wales Police), representations made by the respondent, and all other oral and written representations: 1. Accepted that there had been some failings at the venue, but on this occasion did not resolve to remove the DPS they were satisfied that these matters were being adequately addressed through the measures outlined by the business; 2. Recognised that the business had moved away from using standard glass vessels, and did not consider it proportionate to attach the police condition in relation to non-glass vessels; 3. Did not consider it proportionate to mandate the use of ID scanners through a licensing condition at this time; 4. Felt that the police’s suggested condition around designated walkways would be impracticable and not appropriate. The wording of the 16 conditions that had been accepted by the licensee were accepted, with the added amendment to condition 10 (bullet point D) to state: ‘All incidents of disorder which the premises is aware, including sexual assault’. The Sub Committee also accepted the premises plan as detailed on page 240 of the bundle.
Present: Applicants: Constanze Bell KC Justin Hardwick (South Wales Police) Jason Jones (South Wales Police) Will Tapper (South Wales Police) Scott McCarthy (South Wales Police) John Crowther (South Wales Police) Respondents: Phillip Kolvin KC Kris Williams (Designated Premises Supervisor) Nick Newman Michael Haygarth Simon Little Luke Auckland Craig Davies Efa Prydderch (Hugh James Solicitors) Nicola Jordan (Hugh James Solicitors) Officers: Claire Hartrey (Licensing) Amanda Jones (Legal Services) Graham Porter (Democratic Services) Harry Mayo (Democratic Services) The Application An application for the review of a Premises Licence had been received in respect of the Premises Licence held by SLCD Ltd in respect of Brewhouse, 49 St Mary Street, Cardiff, CF10 1AD. The licence holder was permitted by the licence to provide the following: 1. In respect of the following licensable activities: i. The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises. ii. The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of live music (indoors), recorded music (indoors), performance of dance (indoors) and entertainment of a similar description to music and dance (indoors). iii. The provision of late night refreshment (indoors). 2. To provide licensable activities during the following hours: i. The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises: Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 01:00 hours Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to 02:00 hours Sunday: 10:00 to 00:30 hours Sunday preceding a Bank Holiday: 10:00 to 01:00 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 hours until start of permitted hours on New Years Day ii. The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of live music (indoors), recorded music (indoors), performance of dance (indoors) and entertainment of a similar description to music and dance (indoors): Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 01:00 hours Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to 02:00 hours Sunday: 10:00 to 00:30 hours Sunday preceding a Bank Holiday: 10:00 to 01:00 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 hours until start of permitted hours on New Years Day iii. The provision of late night refreshment (indoors): Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 01:00 hours Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 02:00 hours Sunday: 23:00 to 00:30 hours Sunday preceding a Bank Holiday: 23:00 to 01:00 hours New Years Eve: 23:00 to 05:00 hours The application for the review had been received from South Wales Police. The grounds for the review, as stated by South Wales Police, were as follows: South Wales Police (SWP) as a responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003 and under the objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm make an application for the review of Premises Licence No. CCCP00489, Brewhouse, 49 St Mary Street, Cardiff. South Wales Police have serious concerns that the way this premises operates is undermining the licensing objectives due to the premises licence holders' failure to ensure compliance with their licence conditions, as well as a failure to ensure that due diligence is suitably conducted. These failings have led to a number of extremely serious incidents at the premise, which include assaults involving glassware, assaults by door supervisors, general incidents of anti-social behaviour, sexual assaults, and the ongoing failure to comply with licence conditions or provide suitable measures to promote the licensing objectives. South Wales Police submit that this review is necessary to promote all four of the licensing objectives but with specific emphasis placed upon the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. The applicants and respondents discussed the various supporting information that they had provided. Both a main pack of 322 pages and a 70 page supplementary bundle were referenced. The Chair adjourned briefly to ensure all parties’ paperwork aligned. It was confirmed that Members had received both a main bundle and supplementary bundle from the Brewhouse, and a police bundle split into 13 parts, with Appendix 7 sub-divided into CCTV videos with an index identifying each one. Applicant Representations Representing the applicant (South Wales Police), Constanze Bell KC explained that 17 conditions had already been agreed with the Brewhouse following discussion. The outstanding conditions concerned the serving of all drinks in non-glass vessels, an ID scanning system, the requirement that walkways be kept free of obstructions with signage ensuring patrons did not gather or loiter there, and the removal of the DPS. The police felt that those conditions would help to reduce and prevent crime and disorder on the premises, but acknowledged that the Sub Committee would consider each of them on their own terms. Discussing the video evidence, the applicants’ representative noted that the police rarely brought cases like this before the Sub Committee, but they had serious concerns that the premises was not promoting the licensing objectives. They felt that the video footage demonstrated a pattern of behaviour at the premises, and saw the review as an opportunity to resolve those issues and get it back on track. The applicants asked whether the Sub Committee had viewed the videos they had provided in full. The Chair confirmed that they had not, so the Sub Committee moved into exempt session and viewed the CCTV evidence provided by South Wales Police in full. The applicants outlined the disputed conditions in further detail. Firstly, on the question of whether drinks should be served in non-glass vessels, they suggested that it was alarming and notable how many glass-based injuries there had been at the premises, which would have been far less serious if plastic vessels were used, and suggested that requiring these at all times was appropriate and reasonable. They were generally only required in Cardiff on major event days, but the licensing policy allowed leeway in particular circumstances, which the police felt was justified in this case. They also noted that plastic cups were the norm at live music venues. The second disputed condition related to the proposed ID scanning system. The applicants suggested that in many of the cases seen in the CCTV videos, the police’s investigations were made more difficult by being unable to identify those involved, as the premises had just made them leave. Walkabout and Revolution de Cuba had similar ID scanning systems in place, and the police did not consider it to be a deterrent to potential customers as people would learn about having to carry ID quickly, and suggested that patrons who knew their ID had been recorded would behave better. The next disputed condition concerned keeping walkways free of obstruction. The police suggested that managing crowd behaviour was much more difficult when walkways were crowded, and felt this had contributed to some of the chaotic incidents seen on the videos. A diagram of the premises identified the main through-routes which were to be kept clear, and there was another proposed condition which related to signage and required staff to be proactive to ensure people didn’t gather in those places. The last disputed issue was the removal of the current DPS. The police suggested that all the matters discussed cumulatively pointed to a breakdown in management and problems with leadership, and felt this was an appropriate and justified step. They referred specifically to excessive and uncontrolled violence by door staff against people in the premises, including chokeholds, retaliatory punches and unnecessary restraint. The applicants noted that there was one further condition (number 8), requiring all outside drinking to be seated, which the premises was asking to be removed, as it was difficult to enforce and other premises allowed for standing drinking outside. The police felt it would be inappropriate to amend the licence in this way, and suggested that a fresh application should be required so the impact of such a change could be fully considered in the proper forum. Summarising the applicants’ position, she explained that the core question was what would promote the licensing objectives. Serious incidents of crime and disorder had taken place, and the police had sought to take a measured approach, engaging with the applicant to discuss conditions rather than seeking revocation. Members queried the layout of the Brewhouse and how the proposed condition regarding keeping the walkways clear would work. The applicants clarified that there was a stage area with a slightly elevated space to the side, with the proposed walkway going through the middle of the stage area and to the side of the elevated area. It would still be possible to have some seating to the side, but the idea was to keep a clear space free so it was easier to navigate. In some of the incidents seen on the CCTV, unwitting individuals had been drawn in because everyone was so tightly packed together, and it was hard for staff to identify and manage those involved. Members asked whether the police’s main concern was about the door staff, the DPS or both. The applicants responded that they had sought the removal of the DPS because they were ultimately responsible for the issues seen, which included heavy-handed actions by door staff. Members referred to a specific case of sexual assault seen on the CCTV and asked what the venue was expected to have done to respond to this, given it was not reported to them at the time. The South Wales Police representatives felt that more vigilant door staff could have intervened before anything happened had they been proactively implementing the terms of the licence. The incident had been included to demonstrate a wider pattern, but they acknowledged it was different to some of the other incidents of violence, where a failure to report the event to the police had made their investigations more difficult. Respondent Representations Speaking on behalf of the premises, Phillip Kolvin KC began by suggesting that it was an unusual review, brought forward solely by the police and supported by no other services, such as health and safety or the licensing authority. It was, however, opposed by a significant number of individuals who had made representations in support of the venue. He emphasised the importance of proportionality, suggesting that while the disputed conditions might support the licensing objectives, they were disproportionate to the circumstances of the case and would have a crippling effect on his client’s business. He suggested that 40 minutes of decontextualised CCTV footage, not supported by witness statements and decoupled from police reports, did not provide a comprehensive picture of the premises. The Brewhouse had been open for 12 years, with a noteworthy incident taking place there about ten times a year, during which time around 450,000 people would have visited the premises. He added that the Croeso management company sought to maintain a high-quality portfolio of wet-food pubs, and now owned nine local venues. The company had a Cardiff ethos, with the staff, bands and security company all local to the area, and the directors were of exemplary character. Their nine venues employed 260 local people as well as other service providers. He suggested that a well-managed and responsible chain of businesses did not decide to become an irresponsible one overnight. He added that the Brewhouse site was formerly a Hard Rock Café, and had been a failing site in a difficult location. Since being taken over it had thrived, and was now one of Cardiff’s busiest venues, with more than 5,000 visitors a week. People in Cardiff were not short of choice but a lot of them chose Brewhouse because it was a music-led, congenial environment. It was not the cheapest venue, but competed through quality. It was a bar and live music venue which did not charge for entry, with three or four live acts each night from 5pm onwards. He acknowledged that there had been some incidents on the premises but felt these were very rare, and that there was no evidence it was some kind of disorderly mob. On the contrary, it was critical to the venue’s success that everyone felt welcome. He noted that there had only been four managers in the 12 years since it opened, and that the three previous managers were still directly involved. Nick Newman had worked in hospitality in Cardiff for 48 years and was now area director, and had helped found the Licensees Forum 33 years ago. Michael Haygarth had worked in the Brewery Quarter for 17 years, formerly as the Brewhouse DPS, and was now at the Philharmonic. The current DPS Kris Williams had worked there for 11 years, and in that time had strengthened management oversight and improved the integration of CCTV and reporting procedures. He added that every Saturday night there were four managers working the premises, and every day reports of any issues were made to the management team. There was no suggestion that the DPS had ever understaffed the premises. All staff underwent the relevant training as described in the papers, including conflict resolution, safeguarding and workplace sexual harassment. On the question of security, the same provider was used by Croeso across their whole estate. They were a Cardiff company who required all their workers to be uniformed, badged and radioed. At times, they were required to act in self-defence, but they had to justify their conduct in these cases to the DPS and managers, with the risk of losing job or their SIA licence if they could not. He noted that five door staff at Brewhouse had lost their jobs on account of their actions during the kind of incidents seen in the CCTV evidence. The respondents hoped that the review would lead to a better partnership with the police, for the benefit of their customers and Cardiff as a whole. The success of the night-time economy depended on partnership, for example with the Brewery Quarter, who were very complimentary about Brewhouse’s management. They engaged closely with the Licensees Forum and felt that more regular meetings with the police would be very useful. He noted that the premises was a designated safe space and was accredited as part of Best Bar None, an independent Home Office-backed scheme. The Brewhouse was also one of 36 premises in Cardiff to take part in a designated driver scheme where designated drivers could get free soft drinks. They had their own test kits on site to test allegedly spiked drinks, and were yet to see a positive test. The premises operated a drug safe that could only be opened by the police, and used a comprehensive CCTV system to cover all sides of the venue. He acknowledged that while not everyone who visited the premises was going to be an angel, incidents occurring did not mean it was badly run, and there were not specifically more incidents than anywhere else in the city centre. The Sub Committee had heard an account from the police of 18 incidents across 21 months, which was one every 35 days or 512 hours of trade. This equated to a noteworthy incident for about every 43,000 people who passed through the premises, and no context had been provided by the police about how this compared to the norm. He noted that across 12 months in Cathays, there were around 7,000 reported crimes. Ten of these took place at this premises, or about one in 700. He did not consider it to be a particularly problematic premises, and there had been no attempt in the police’s representations to grade it compared to its peers, or to more objectively categorise the incidents seen. He acknowledged that some of the offences seen were very distressing, but stressed they could have happened at any bar in Cardiff. Mr Colvin questioned how the premises could be compared with other premises of similar size and operation, and referenced the traffic light system set out in the Statement of Licensing Policy. He considered that Cardiff was the leading authority nationally when it introduced this system. Quoting from the policy, he said that the traffic light system took account of data from police and health service sources and categorised premises according to objective evidence. Data was analysed on a monthly basis, taking into account the previous six months, and then points were allocated. He referenced comments made in the written representations received from Nick Newman that urged South Wales Police to use their own traffic light system. Members were advised that his clients had repeatedly unsuccessfully requested sight of the data in relation to the premises, but had been advised ‘not to get bogged down in the numbers’. Mr Colvin added that when incidents occurred in the CCTV videos, security staff were almost always there in seconds. The police’s complaint was not that his clients didn’t care, but that their responses were too robust. He suggested that it was hard to judge these instances based on a snapshot, lacking context of what happened before, and emphasised that the Sub Committee was not conducting a trial for each incident. Door staff were licensed individuals who were held to account if they overstepped the mark, and five had been let go over the last two and a half years when they weren’t able to justify their actions in the daily reports. He considered this to be evidence that the system was working well rather than badly. Regarding other incidents seen in the videos, he suggested that there was no evidence of the premises allowing or encouraging over-intoxication, nor had there been any confirmed incidents of spiking drinks when they were tested. He considered that the depiction of his client as an irresponsible operator was profoundly wrong. Regarding the conditions, he noted that the review had been submitted at the same time as the premises had been preparing a minor variation application concerning the seated outdoor drinking. He felt that ‘tacking it on’ to the review hearing was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and it was for the Sub Committee to consider it on its own merits just like the other conditions. He noted that condition 1 did not permit customers to remove drinks from the premises unless they went to a delineated external area, which did not exist, as the hatched area was a communal Brewery Quarter space. It was suggested that the plan they had prepared of this area was attached to the licence to make it clearer for everyone. He clarified that regardless of this, there would be no drinking permitted out front, only at the back. Moving onto the disputed conditions, he noted that national guidance required licensing authorities to establish the cause of concerns and to direct appropriate and proportionate remedial action at these. On the question of non-glass vessels, the council’s licensing policy advocated a risk-based rather than blanket approach on non-major-event days. The Brewhouse already used a safer alternative for all drinks, a type of toughened glass which did not shatter and create shards. Requiring them to use plastic cups would make the venue seem cheap and unsafe, and would likely put off customers who were paying premium prices for a premium product. He suggested that ID scanning systems were generally used in nightclubs rather than pubs or live music venues, and to require one at Brewhouse would be disproportionate and inappropriate, as well as unsupported by the evidence, given that underage attendance was not a particular issue. ID scanning would merely delay entry and create inconvenience, dissuading attendance and encouraging patrons to go elsewhere. It was a discriminatory condition that wasn’t applied to other similar premises. Both Walkabout and Revolution de Cuba were open until after 3am, and didn’t scan IDs until after 9pm, and this was only when deemed ‘necessary’. He contended that the condition for mandatory ID scanning at all times would make the Brewhouse inoperable as a music venue. He suggested that requiring clear walkways going through the middle of the premises was similarly unreasonable, with practicality being the main issue. It seemed to mean that if someone was standing by the bar watching live music, a door supervisor would need to come over and move them on account of being in the way. This was effectively unenforceable, even if the floors were to be painted, and would significantly reduce the capacity of the venue by creating a gap in the middle of the floor. The capacity was set according to a fire risk assessment, with door staff tasked with ensuring it wasn’t exceeded, and the fire officer had no issues with the premises whatsoever. On the condition regarding the DPS, he asked that the Sub Committee did not sack Mr Williams, and suggested that the condition was highly disproportionate. If a DPS was as remiss in the pursuit of their duties as the police claimed, there was a perfectly good existing procedure to bring that to the Sub Committee’s attention. He suggested that a pre-emptive ability for the police to decree that a DPS was removed was not how licensing worked. In summary, he hoped that the Sub Committee would consider the premises’ response to those particular proposed conditions to be reasonable. Members queried whether they had the power to remove the DPS. The Legal Officer confirmed that this could be applied, and that the respondents’ case was that this would be disproportionate rather than unlawful. Members asked how individual staff training was carried out, and heard that individual training needs were identified by the DPS and overseen by area managers. Training of security staff was the responsibility of the company that employed them. Records were kept about every staff member and their training logs. Members queried how many staff members were first aid trained, and heard that there were four on the regular staff in addition to every member of door staff. Members suggested that a number of the incidents shown on the CCTV showed door staff far exceeding their duties or any idea of self-defence. The respondents acknowledged this, but suggested that in some cases there might have been context that led to the incidents taking place. Members disagreed that there could have been context that could have justified those specific actions. One of the respondents, representing Croeso, agreed that the particular cases were not justified, and highlighted the regularity of incident reports they received and the procedures by which those involved were held to account. In many of the cases seen in the videos, the door staff involved had lost their jobs or their SIA badges. Members queried how long the toughened glass alternative had been in use, and heard that this had been successfully piloted recently and was now used for all drink types. Members asked why there had been delays in reporting serious incidents to the police, and heard that in some cases the victim reported it initially rather than the premises. The serious assaults discussed at the Sub Committee had all been reported. The hearing was intended to be forward-looking, ensuring that Members had confidence in the premises’ ability to manage that sort of incident in the future rather than looking back. Croeso had recently invested in Licensing Connect to ensure reports went online, including every incident and ejection. Members explored the proposed ID scanning condition and heard that the premises felt it would be a disproportionate burden that would not lead to significant improvements in public safety. It was very hard to identify particular times and areas where issues were more likely to occur, and they believed that Walkabout and Revs used their scanners very rarely. Members discussed the layout of the venue and heard that it had been refurbished when it was taken over to create an open bar where people could stand and watch live music. A member of security always stood on the stage itself, as well as one on the stairs going up to the VIP area, so they both had good views. Members asked how the door staff themselves were monitored, and heard that there was a head door supervisor who supervised their own team. Every incident was logged and the directors notified, with daily reviews and weekly higher-level management reviews. The respondents emphasised that door staff were all qualified people who knew about their duty of care, and if management had concerns about their conduct then they were hauled over the coals. Members asked what safeguarding procedures were in place to prevent sexual assault, and heard that the premises was part of the national Ask For Angela scheme, as well as being a designated safe space and working with women’s safety groups. The respondents highlighted the testimonies received from young women who went there regularly about how safe they felt. The incidents in the CCTV went back as far as 2023, and they had had over a million visitors since then with very few issues. It was not a dark environment, and they didn’t see the same issues as in nightclubs. They also added that staff enjoyed working there and felt safe. The applicants asked when exactly the five door staff mentioned previously had been let go. The manager of the security company explained that this was a reactive process based on daily reports. If there was anything heavy-handed and the individuals could not entirely justify their conduct, they were removed from the premises. Serious incidents could also lead to their SIA badge being removed. The clips spanned two years in one of the busiest venues in Cardiff, and each individual had been held accountable for their actions. The respondents were not able to say exactly when all of the staff had been let go, but noted that in one of the incidents Members had viewed, the individual in question had been suspended 90 minutes later. Members queried whether chokeholds were part of the door staff’s training and heard that while there were different types of restraints that could be used, their use was very rarely justified. The requirement on SIA staff was to use no more force than absolutely necessary, on a case by case basis, and when they couldn’t justify it they were let go. Members asked what happened to those who were suspended, and heard that it was a sliding scale. Losing their badge meant they couldn’t work as an SIA anywhere else, and the company did not facilitate them working elsewhere. In cases where there weren’t external repercussions, they might be retrained or redeployed to a quieter venue. Summing Up Summing up on behalf of the respondents, Phillip Kolvin KC reiterated that the majority of conditions had been accepted as reasonable and proportionate, with only a few that the premises could not accept. His clients believed that the hearing could lead to a more positive relationship with the police going forward. Brewhouse was a popular venue beloved by customers and musicians, and effectively making it all-seated with plastic glasses would damage the business in a way far disproportionate to this, its first review. He hoped that his client had demonstrated he was a responsible operator who took his role seriously, and had engaged with the review process in the best possible faith. Summing up on behalf of the applicants, Constanze Bell KC suggested that opportunities to engage with the police in the past had not been taken. She welcomed the agreement of conditions so far, but did not consider that the police’s concerns had been completely answered. She noted that relation to plastic vessel condition, the Sub Committee had been advised that toughened glass was the answer, with the evidence provided coming from the company who made the glasses. The police’s view was that the only way to fully deal with the issue of repeated serious incidents involving glass was to remove the glass. This was normal for live music venues and in keeping with the council’s licensing policy, which did not limit requiring plastic vessels to event days, and they did not accept that it would render the venue unprofitable. She added that on the ID scanning system question, there were no specific peak times when trouble occurred, and that the incidents had been spread out across the day. On the walkways point, there were clear issues with crowd management and safety concerns associated with this. Regarding the DPS, she asked Members to take a collective view of the evidence they had heard and consider whether the premises was being appropriately managed. The police’s view was that there was a culture of excessive behaviour seemingly endorsed by management, and that the five problematic SIA staff had only been sacked after the review process began. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant (South Wales Police), representations made by the respondent, and all other oral and written representations: 1. Accepted that there had been some failings at the venue, but on this occasion did not resolve to remove the DPS they were satisfied that these matters were being adequately addressed through the measures outlined by the business; 2. Recognised that the business had moved away from using standard glass vessels, and did not consider it proportionate to attach the police condition in relation to non-glass vessels; 3. Did not consider it proportionate to mandate the use of ID scanners through a licensing condition at this time; 4. Felt that the police’s suggested condition around designated walkways would be impracticable and not appropriate. The wording of the 16 conditions that had been accepted by the licensee were accepted, with the added amendment to condition 10 (bullet point D) to state: ‘All incidents of disorder which the premises is aware, including sexual assault’. The Sub Committee also accepted the premises plan as detailed on page 240 of the bundle.
Part of an issue followed across 2 meetings
There were none.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.