Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of Blossoms, 7 North Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1RE, had been received from the Licensing Authority.

The Chair welcomed all parties to the hearing and invited all those present to introduce themselves. All parties did so. He outlined the procedure to be followed and all parties confirmed that they understood the procedure.

Debra Craner, Section Leader Licensing, provided an outline of the

application. Richard Phillips, Senior Solicitor representing the Licensing Authority (Applicant), confirmed that the summary was accurate.

The Chair invited the Licensing Authority to present their application. Richard Phillips, Senior Solicitor representing the Licensing Authority, did so as per Appendix 3 of the report. He advised that the CCTV footage referred to within the application had been circulated to all parties prior to the Hearing and Members of the Sub-Committee confirmed they had viewed the CCTV footage.

Mr Phillips stated that there had been a flagrant disregard by the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) to uphold the Licensing Objectives, comply with the conditions of the licence and ensure that the premises were COVID-secure. He said that Council Officers had sought to assist the PLH to ensure that the premises were operating safely but this advice had not been not followed and therefore, revocation of the premises licence was requested by the Licensing Authority.

The Chair afforded all parties present the opportunity to question the Mr Phillips in relation to his submission. Mr Phillips and Elaine Moreton, Licensing Authority, provided responses to questions asked.

The Chair invited the Premises Licence Holder to make representations.

Duncan Craig, Barrister representing the Premises Licence Holder, stated the following:

1. Times were challenging and mistakes had been made.
2. The premises had taken considerable steps towards compliance and had listened to the advice given to them.
3. Young people were hard to manage.
4. A Risk Assessment had been produced and revised to address concerns raised by Environmental Health.
5. The dangerous structure had been built by someone other than the PLH. When the Building Control Officer, Stuart Hitchcox, inspected the structure in August 2020 he commented that it did not appear unsafe but should be boarded up. This had been done but, in any event, the review application should not focus on this.
6. Measures taken to adhere with Covid requirements included making anti-bacterial hand gel, a designated toilet usher and PPE available, updating the fire risk assessment and emergency plan, reducing capacity, servicing air conditioning, creating pod bubbles, a booking system, a one way system and QR system and ensuring regular cleaning.
7. Capacity had never been exceeded.
8. They had not been able to successfully prevent patrons dancing.
9. There had been social distancing at the premises with tables set out which is clearly shown in the video footage.
10. It was more difficult to manage vertical drinking, groups of more than six people and dancing.
11. Loud music had been an issue at the beginning of the Bank Holiday weekend, but action had been taken to ensure the music level was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.