Doncaster Metripolitan Council Licensing Sub-Committee Meeting

No declarations were reported at the meeting.

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a review of an existing premises licence for Mambo, 14 Silver Street, Doncaster DN1 1HQ.

The Sub-Committee Members, the Applicant, South Yorkshire Police, the Premises Licence Holder, their representative and any persons making representations had received a copy of the agenda papers prior to the meeting. A copy of the representations was attached at Appendix F. Appendix F was not for publication and exempt under Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972, as amended.

A copy of an additional witness statement was also provided to all parties prior to the commencement of the meeting. The additional statement was not for publication and exempt under Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.

At the commencement of the meeting, the Chair welcomed everyone back to the reconvened meeting, introductions were made, and she outlined the procedure to be followed.

The Senior Licensing Practitioner, Hayley Oxley introduced the report and outlined the key points to the application.

The Applicant’s representative, Mr Oliver Norman, PC Gourdin and Catherine Jarvis, South Yorkshire Police attended the meeting, made representations and answered questions.

Mr Andrew Delany, Senior Environmental Health Practitioner for City of Doncaster Council and Mrs Michelle Clark, Regulatory Manager for Food and Animal Health at City of Doncaster Council attended the meeting and also made representations further to their written evidence supplied within the agenda papers and additional documents.

The Premises Licence Holder’s representative, Mr Paddy Whur, Mr Julian Clark (Mambo) Mr Gary Smith (Mambo) and other persons from Mambo attended the meeting, made representations and answered questions.

All parties were then asked to leave the meeting whilst the sub-committee deliberated on the application and reached a decision.

All parties were brought back into the meeting and the Chair of the Sub-Committee stated that the decision would be communicated to all parties in writing either later that afternoon or on Monday morning.

Subsequently it was

RESOLVED that having considered the application for the review of the existing premises licence for Mambo, 14 Silver Street, Doncaster DN1 1HQ, taken into account the representations made and evidence presented today, the steps that are appropriate to promote the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy and have decided to amend the licence to add a number of conditions.

It was submitted by Oliver Norman, representing South Yorkshire Police, a Responsible Authority, that SYP were seeking to modify the license conditions, to exclude the Crisis Buster promotion. 

The Crisis Buster promotion refers to a promotion offering unlimited drinks & pizza, over a 4-hour period of time over numerous bars, for the price of £20. The Sub-Committee had seen a Facebook post, where this offer was being advertised.

It was submitted that this promotion was a breach of a mandatory licensing condition, specifically to not carry out irresponsible promotions.  The test for this was promotions which carry a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective.  It was submitted by South Yorkshire police that there was a significant risk of breaching licensing objectives, namely public safety, and preventing crime & disorder.

South Yorkshire Police sought to distinguish this from other bottomless brunches, which were limited to a shorter period, 2 hours, and would include food and drink brought to a customer’s table.  There would be one server who would have a good idea of how much a person had drunk. Whilst it was accepted by South Yorkshire Police that there may not actually be a record of this, the argument was that a server can assess and keep a mental record or take a view on how the group were acting, as to their state of intoxication.

The Crisis Buster, in comparison, had no table service and runs for 4 hours, across 6 bars, with a specified 2 hour period in each of the bars.  It was noted that subject to the decision made today, South Yorkshire Police would intend to contact the other premises involved in this deal.

The Sub-Committee considered the statements provided by South Yorkshire Police, detailing a number of incidents which had occurred within the City Centre.

One involved a heavily intoxicated female wearing a wrist band, being violent towards Police Officers.  South Yorkshire Police told the Sub-Committee that there were warning markers against this person for violence, assault PC, possession of weapons and a history of alcohol related offences.  The Sub-Committee asked if the drinking establishments in Doncaster were made aware of this and asked not to allow her entry.  It was accepted by South Yorkshire Police that the warning signs relate to previous convictions and being under the influence of alcohol during the offending, and this was given as an example of somebody who should not be allowed access to this level of cheap alcohol.  Whilst the establishments were not aware of this, it was submitted that there were always going to be vulnerable people who take advantage of a scheme such as this and interfere with the safety of the public.  It was said that Mambo do not do enough to mitigate this risk. After questions from the Chair of the Committee, it was established that the female in question was from Sheffield and she was not known to police officers in Doncaster or licenced premises in Doncaster.

Much of the Police’s case relied upon an anonymous report, from a witness identified as “Witness A”.  Witness A became involved following an incident on 9th December 2023 where the witness had to call an ambulance, and their evidence continues through to 27th April 2024.  The evidence contains a series of photographs which were considered.  The photographs show a series of people.  Some with Mambo Wristbands, and most showing people in a poor state of health or intoxication. 

One of the photographs provided by Witness A showed a group of people stood in the street.  There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that these people were in any way connected with Mambo, that they were in any way intoxicated, or causing any risk to themselves or others.  South Yorkshire Police sought to rely upon hearsay as to the circumstances around this photograph, but it was noted that the Officer was not in attendance at the time the photograph was taken.  The Sub-Committee were asked not to discount all of the pictures, though, and agreed that on the whole several of the pictures show Crisis Buster wrist bands on people incapacitated on the floor.

It was argued by South Yorkshire Police that the natural conclusion from having the deal open for 4 hours, across multiple bars, during prime drinking time, was that people will drink far too much, become seriously ill, commit crimes, or become a risk to themselves.

The Sub-Committee noted that the police officer who gave evidence today, PC Gourdin, worked in a department including the most serious violence.  He had provided statistics showing an increase of serious violence on Silver Street in recent years, and a similar picture in other areas of the city centre streets.  Mr Whur, the Solicitor representing Mambo however, reminded the Sub-Committee that the Crisis Buster deal had been running for two years, making it hard to see how a recent increase in crime can be linked to the deal.

The Sub-Committee were concerned about associating the behaviour with the Mambo promotion.  For example, in one case, an offender had only attended the promotion once.  It was submitted that this was a general example of how easily people can get put into a state where they are likely to offend and cause a risk to themselves and public. 

The Sub-Committee were aware from the submissions from South Yorkshire Police that they had made their concerns known to Mambo, and the Sub-Committee appreciated that people’s safety was their primary concern. 

The Sub-Committee were mindful that whilst people were moving around, it was time where people were not spent drinking.  The Applicant responded that the issue with moving around was that it makes it more difficult for staff to assess how much a person had drunk. By spreading the promotion over numerous bars, over a longer period of time, it was argued that it increases the risk of participants becoming more intoxicated.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Andrew Delany, a Senior Environmental Health Practitioner for City of Doncaster Council, a Responsible Authority.  His role as a health & safety inspector, requires him to ensure compliance with Health and Safety legislation.   His involvement dated back to January 2023.

Michelle Clark, a Regulatory Manager for Food and Animal Health at City of Doncaster Council also made representations, further to her written evidence in the bundle. 

Mr Whur, the solicitor on behalf of Mambo, made representations that there were 6 premises involved in the Crisis Buster deal.  He had described South Yorkshire Police’s case as wholly unfair and asked the Sub-Committee to consider real evidence.

The operator for Mambo, also operated: Ballers, Boogie Bar, Mint, Hall Cross, Mambo, and Social.  The hours within the Crisis Buster deal changed between the premises, to allow a circuit and movement of people between the establishments.   It was contended that this approach was safer than most bottomless brunches as people were moving around, through different types of premises, with pizza and food included in the deal and fresh air. The Sub-Committee also noted that people will be stopping drinking whilst moving between the premises and will be assessed by the door staff at each venue.

The Sub-Committee in making their decision noted that Mambo had a risk assessment in place, and training for staff. 

The Sub-Committee were asked to consider the mandatory conditions in the premises license, in particular 3)(a), which outlined the definition of irresponsible promotions, which Mr Whur contended did not include the deal being provided by Mambo.

The Sub-Committee considered the guidance under section 182 guidance, particularly paragraphs 10.39-10.41 relating to irresponsible drinks promotions.  It was argued that having a deal does not breach the mandatory condition.  There must be a significant risk, and in light of the detailed risk assessment, it had been argued that there was not such a risk in the Crisis Buster deal.  The Sub-Committee concurred that the risk assessment was detailed, and it was disappointing that the police licensing officer had not seen the risk assessment.

In response to the Police case, Mark Walton was not in attendance to answer questions about his evidence.  Mr Whur raised a particular concern that in one case an incident occurred at 10:10pm, when the Crisis Buster starts at Mambo at 10:00 pm.  The Sub-Committee agreed that it was not possible to conclude that this can be the result of the person drinking at Mambo.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the evidence was not limited to just people who had been drinking at Mambo.  Whilst the Sub-Committee were concerned that the crime statistics had increased, it was not possible to conclude that this was linked to Mambo or the Crisis Buster Deal.  Furthermore, in one example where there was an altercation between a customer and a member of door staff, it was not possible to conclude that this person had been drinking at Mambo or participating in the Crisis Buster deal.

Within the bundle there was an advert with reference to “unlimited drinks”.  It was agreed this would not be in social media advertisements.  This had not been in any other social media posts and was not used anymore. 

Looking at the crime reports in the bundle, Mr Whur argued that in a significant proportion of these, there was either no crime, or can’t be attributed to either Mambo or the Crisis Buster deal.  It was argued that these crime records portray an unfair picture on Mambo.

Mr Whur responded to the representations made by Mr Delany and expressed his apology that the health and safety concerns had not been dealt with, but assured the Committee that these were almost resolved, and he gave an undertaking that these will be resolved to the satisfaction of Mr Delany.

Mr Whur stated that welfare chaperones were now in place in the area, provided by the operators of Mambo.  Their role was to help people in difficulty through drinking at any of the premises in the area.  It was argued that this was inconsistent with a premises holder who was not trying to do his best to provide a safe environment.

In closing submissions, Mr Delany emphasised the importance of health and safety re-iterated his concerns.  Michelle Clark further summarised her concerns in relation to the food hygiene, cleanliness and allergens.

In making their decision, the Sub-Committee considered paragraphs 9.43 and 9.44 of the section 182 guidance.  The Sub-Committee realised that the decision needed to be evidence based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, and proportionate to what it intended to achieve.  The Sub-Committee needed to consider whether no lesser step will achieve the aim, and if so, to consider the potential burden on the premises holder, as well as the potential benefit in terms of promoting the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee felt that many of the photographs had been taken by an anonymous person, who may be a competitor, and with no context or information relating to the pictures.  South Yorkshire Police conceded on a number of occasions that a lot of the evidence cannot be attributed to Mambo.

The Sub-Committee were particularly concerned about the food hygiene, allergen issues, and health and safety issues.  The Sub-Committee had noted that Mr Whur put forward that these could be addressed in a condition to this premises licence.  The Sub-Committee were satisfied, though, that there is already legislation in place to deal with these issues which includes enforcement action.  The Sub-Committee would strongly urge the premises license holder to ensure that these were complied with and that they cooperate with local authority officers.

A number of proposed conditions had been provided.  Most of these were agreed by the premises licence holder, however it is noted that conditions 3, 4, 11, 17 and 18 were disputed.

The Sub-Committee decided not to take any further action, other than to add to the existing conditions to further promote the licensing objectives.  The additions were provided at A7 and A8, except for those conditions at paragraphs 3, 4, 11 and 17.  In addition condition 15 be amended so that SIA security company staff will only be required during the opening hours of the premises.  The third bullet point should also say that South Yorkshire Police should be “alerted”, rather than “altered”.