Agenda item

Purpose of Report

 

For the committee to consider an application for the grant of a new premises licence pursuant to section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003 ("the Act").

 

The matter has been referred to the committee for determination following receipt of relevant representations from other persons, namely local residents, local traders and councillors.

 

The Committee is requested to determine the application.

In the Matter of the Licensing Act 2003:

Application for grant of a premise licence - Elegance, 149 Albert Road, Southsea PO4 0JW.

 

The Committee has carefully considered the application before it for the grant of a premise licence and has also considered the representations made in relation to this application, both made orally and in writing. The Committee has also heard the comments of the applicant's leading counsel and further notes the fact that in addition a number of petitions have been submitted together with a number of written objections running from page 39 of the bundle to page 232.

 

The Committee have considered the relevant sections of the Portsmouth City Council Licensing Policy.

 

 

The Committee look to all the Responsible Authorities but mainly the Police for guidance and assistance in determining the effect of a licensing activity in terms of all the licensing objectives, but principally in terms of the Police, prevention of crime and disorder- the Committee should but are not obliged to accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the police. The fact that no representations have been made is of significance and the Committee give appropriate weight to that fact. A similar view is given to the fact that none of the other Responsible Authorities have made any representation.  

 

The above having been said the Committee is engaged by reason of the number of objections correctly received in having to consider the current application. The Committee was impressed by the number and thoughtfulness of the representations and able to conclude that the majority of comments pertained to the licensing objectives of:

·         Prevention of crime and disorder.

·         Prevention of public nuisance.

·         Protection of children from harm.

·         Public safety.

 

 

being allegedly engaged. Having looked at the comments there is no evidence to link any incidents to the premises and that the mere "likelihood" of such incidents occurring in the future is not such as to enable the application to be rejected. The Committee also note that parking concerns cannot be taken into consideration in determining this application. 

Additionally there is no evidence to suggest that the applicants' have materially failed to promote any of the relevant licensing objectives indeed the operating schedule shows a high level of consideration to the necessary steps being taken to promote on a continuing basis all of the licensing objectives. 

 

 

In considering the application for a grant of a premise licence the Committee is mindful of the following facts as having been established upon a balance of probability and further that they have been specifically taken to the relevant parts of the Statutory Guidance under sec182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

1.        The premise will trade from the first floor of the venue with a capacity limited to 100 patrons. It is clear that the applicant has extensive and relevant experience within the licensing trade having run a number of establishments without difficulty.    

 

2.       The premise is not in an area of special policy or cumulative impact and there is no evidence the application sought would be inconsistent with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance or the applicable policy considerations.      

 

3.        The premise previously held a club premises certificate which permitted alcohol sales and regulated entertainment, music and dance and the playing of recorded music until 23:59 Sunday to Thursday and until 01:00 Friday and Saturday.

 

In addition and having considered the Statutory Guidance (section 182 of the Licensing Act) the Committee is also aware that any Responsible  Authority and indeed any other person may ask this Committee to review the licence because of any matter arising at the premises in connection with any of the licensing objectives. This is a key protection and is set out at paragraph 11.1 of the policy.

 

 

However, whilst a review can be initiated it is clear that having established a number of facts one of the common threads running through the objections is relevant to the operating schedule timing in that it is such that a closing time of 04.00 would be potentially a problem in that the following was considered by the Committee as having a material bearing:

 

·         The premise is situated in a densely residential area and persons are living in close vicinity to the premise. 

 

·         The risk of persons living above shops and businesses in Albert Road experiencing public nuisance is a particular concern.

 

 

On the basis of the above the Committee would be prepared to grant a premise licence with amendments to the operating schedule and hours of licensable activity as follows:

 

1.    that all licensable activity will commence at 21:00 and terminate 30 minutes before terminal hour which will be 00:30 on Sundays and 03:00 Monday to Saturday;

 

 

2.    that prominent and clear notices are displayed at all exits requesting the public to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premise and the area quietly and such notices are drawn to the attention of the public when exiting;

 

 

3.    that the entrance and exit of the premise is kept clear and free from litter or debris left by the public;

 

4.    In the event that a smoking area is established outside the premises, the use of the smoking area ceases one hour before terminal hour.

 

          

The Committee can find no reason to decline the licence application as sought with the conditions proffered and the enhanced conditions above being proportionate and consistent with respect to the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives.  The premises licence is therefore granted subject to those conditions.

 

There is a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Licensing Sub-committee hearing procedure was followed.

 

Present:

 

Peter Baulf, Legal Advisor

Tracy Blair, Legal Advisor

Nickii Humphreys, Licensing Manager

Derek Stone, Principal Licensing Officer

Mr Paul Ojla, Applicant

Mr Philip Kolvin, QC, Barrister for the Applicant

Mr Jon Wallsgrove, Solicitor for the Applicant. 

Mr Adrian Studd, Independent Licensing Consultant on behalf of the Applicant.

 

Interested parties making deputations

Ms C Storey

Cllr Lee Hunt

Ms C Dacke

Cllr Suzy Horton

Ms H Reed

Cllr S Pitt

Ms C Davies

Ms M Bonner-Janes

Mr M Mitchell

Mr Andrew Pearce

Mr Richard Adair

 

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked everyone present to introduce themselves. 

 

The Principal Licensing Officer introduced the report. 

 

There were no questions from members to the Principal Licensing Officer. 

 

There were no questions from the applicant to the Principal Licensing Officer. 

 

In response to questions from the interested parties, the Principal Licensing Officer advised the following:

·         He did not think he was in a position to answer the question as to whether this premises opening until 04:00 would not prevent an increased risk of crime and disorder in the area.  He added that there are many venues open in Albert Road until that time in the morning that do not attract incidents of crime and disorder.

·         There are no other premises in Albert Road that are open until 04:00.  He believed the latest was 02:00 or 03:00. 

·         Currently the only premises with a late night licence in Albert Road was the Gin and Olive which was open until 02:30.  There was only one shop in Albert Road with a late night licence.

·         He was not aware that the licensing policy seeks to move people away from licenced premises quickly after hours so they are not in residential areas at night, and said he would need to double check the policy.  Venues will operate in accordance with conditions and the behaviour of individuals after dispersal is down to the individuals.  

·         He confirmed that there are residential properties around Albert Road.  He was unaware that Central Southsea is the most densely populated ward in Portsmouth. 

 

Mr Kolvin, QC was then invited to present the applicant's case.  He reminded members that they had received an additional bundle of information which was sent to them the previous week. 

 

Mr Kolvin wished to start with making four preliminary general remarks about the application:

(1)  Scope - if the premises licence is granted the operation will be highly regulated and subject to 14 conditions on the premises licence which have been previously agreed by the police and other responsible authorities.

(2)  It would also be subject to the mandatory licensing conditions.

(3)  It would also be subject to the 61 conditions on SEV licences set out on page 306 which reflects Portsmouth's thorough code to ensure the premises operates discreetly and without harm

(4)  It would also be subject to the 4 planning conditions set out on page 43 of the applicant's bundle.

 

The Committee would further be entitled to impose further conditions to ensure this happens without harm.  None of the above has been referred to by any of the objectors but he felt this is integral to the application.  He also pointed out that no statutory body has objected to the application. 

 

Mr Kolvin went on to say that today's decisions are not made in perpetuity. The maximum period for a SEV licence is 12 months.  He felt that if the licence was granted it would take up to three months to set everything up.  In one years' time the committee would meet again to see whether there has been any impact as feared by the objectors or if there have been none.

The committee will have some discretion to grant or refuse the licence. 

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the SEV licencing regime is an annual regime therefore any grant given is probationary and not perpetual.

Mr Kolvin explained his client is taking three risks with submitting these applications:

1)    He would be subject to a Licensing Act Review if he does not comply with the conditions.

2)    When the licence comes back for annual renewals the committee will take a fresh look to see if there has been a detrimental impact to the community.  

3)    There is also a risk that in three years' time the planning department decide not to renew the planning permission.

 

All of these points will help to concentrate mind to ensure there is no impact.

 

There have been no objections from the statutory bodies.  This also links to the evidence of Mr Studd which is included in the applicant bundle. 

 

There are five facts that need to be taken into account that would justify the probationary licence:

(1)  Experience from the applicants other venues in Portsmouth who have traded for a combined total of 23 years.

(2)  The responsible authorities have not objected.

(3)  Mr Studd's expert evidence.

(4)  The views of the Planning Inspectorate which are material.

(5)  Conditions to which these licences would be subject to.

 

Mr Ojla is a business person with a number of businesses in the south and has over 40 years' experience.  He has two SEV licences; one on Granada Road held from 2000-2016 and also one in Surrey Street which he has held since 2011.  Mr Ojla's intention is to surrender the licence at Granada Road if the licence at Albert Road is granted. In practical purposes this is a transfer of licence.  There would therefore be no overall increase in the number of SEVs in the PO4 postcode.   If the SEV on the Granada Road site is surrendered the applicant will look to turn this into residential accommodation to be more in keeping with the area.  The proposal for 149 Albert Road is for the ground floor to be developed for retail use with the first floor operating as a SEV.   Above the door would be a sign saying 'Elegance' which would need to be approved by Portsmouth City Council.  The SEV would be for night time use only and the impact on the locality at night will be negligible.

 

Mr Kolvin then referred to the Licensing Act 2003.  The conditions would be those listed on page 28 of the agenda papers.  The conditions provide for:

(1)  Full CCTV coverage, including the private dance areas.

(2)  Staff training.

(3)  Pub Watch attendance.

(4)  Membership of the Business Crime Reduction Partnership.

(5)  Deployment of Security Industry Authority door staff who will be equipped with body cameras worn by all security staff.

(6)  Venue policies to be agreed by the police.

(7)  No entry for the final hour of activity.

 

Mr Kolvin referred to page 5 of the bundle and drew attention to paragraph 4 that said there are no representations received from responsible authorities and conditions have been agreed for crime and disorder and reduction of children from harm.  It is the view of the responsible authorities that these agreed conditions should be adequate to meet the licensing objectives.  He reminded members that the responsible authorities include the licensing authority.  He added that Mr Ojla's other venues have traded for years without harm. 

 

Mr Kolvin referred to page 48 of the applicant's bundle giving the views of the environmental health officer which had been expressed to the planning committee whilst considering the planning application.  They were of the view that as the interior will be acoustically treated so there will be no noise breakout and noise in the street is unlikely to be experienced.   The applicant has two similar venues licenced until 04:00 - Wiggle and Elegance on Granada Road and Mr Kolvin said he had completed a search and found no noise complaints had been reported to the environmental health officer for either venue. Some objectors expressed fears of drunk, rowdy behaviour and an increase in sexual assaults for people in the area, however this has not been the case. Sexual entertainment venues are not high capacity or high consumption venues, alcohol prices are high, the music is low level and the clientele is older than in bars and clubs.  There will be no mass exodus at the end of the night.  The maximum capacity of the venue is 100.  Mr Kolvin said he would now test this against Mr Studd's experience who is an expert in this field.

 

 

Mr Adrian Studd (Expert Witness on behalf of the applicant)

Mr Kolvin questioned Mr Studd and began by confirming with him the information in his written statement within the applicant's bundle, with regard to his work history and relevant experience.  Mr Studd confirmed this was all correct.  Mr Studd was now an independent licensing consultant who is independent and values neutrality. He visited the Albert Road area and gave his description in paragraph 11 of his statement.

 

In response to questions from Mr Kolvin, Mr Studd said the following:

·         From his experience and all the research has been conducted in reality SEVs operate very discretely and people leave the area very rapidly.

·         Following his research carried out in London and other areas, he was unable to find any connection between SEV premises and incidents of serious sexual assaults.

·         SEVs trade very differently both on entry and exit compared to nightclubs.  SEV customers arrive and expect to go straight inside the venue.  With exiting this is over a much more gradual period.  The last admission would be 03:00.  There would therefore be no impact.

·         Alcohol prices are very high within SEVs so alcohol consumption is lower.  This creates a much more relaxed atmosphere as people are not as intoxicated.

·         Most people passing by a SEV are unaware of the entertainment taking place inside.  They are very discreet by regulation with the SEV taking place on the first floor with only minimal signage.

·         With regard to his visit to Wiggle reported on page 19 onwards of his statement, he said he found the premises very discrete and the SEV was on the first floor.  It was very relaxed, controlled environment with door supervisors and he felt the venue was very well managed.  He spoke to some of the dancers who were very complimentary to how the club is run compared to others they have worked in.  They were very quick to point out that they are not sex workers just entertainers.

 

Mr Kolvin thanked Mr Studd and summarised by asking members to take into account:

(1)  The comprehensive set of conditions proposed.

(2)  The views of the responsible authorities.

(3)  The experience of Mr Ojla and the lack of harm at his other venues.

(4)  The expert evidence of Mr Studd.

 

In light of all the above he felt that the premises licence application should be granted without risk of harm. 

 

 

Members' Questions
In response to questions the following points were clarified:

 

·         Mr Studd said that he does not represent clients, they will engage him to carry out research and give his expert view in a report.  His views would be the same as when he was a police officer.  He will say what his findings are then report them.

·         Mr Kolvin said that it frequently occurs that SEVs are near to venues that young people visit and gave an example of a SEV in Leicester Square that was next to family restaurants.  He said there is an outside door supervisor and there is no crossover of clientele.  Dancers do not stand outside the venue.  When asked about queues, Mr Kolvin said there would never be a queue outside a SEV.  Mr Studd confirmed this and said that people visiting SEVs expect to be admitted with no queueing.  Often there is a door in and a small lobby area where they will wait. 

·         Mr Kolvin said that Mr Ojla would be managing the venue in the first instance to ensure the venue is compliant.  After time Mr Ojla may apply to have a new DPS but this will be scrutinised by the police and the licensing authority.

 

 

Questions from interested parties:

In response to questions the following points were clarified:

·         With reference to the case in Bristol, police pointed to the fact that within a radius of two lap dancing clubs, there had been a number of sexual assaults in the last year. In the applicants case he had one venue operating for 6 years and one for 16 years with no evidence that the SEVs are linked to sexual assaults. When the police attended the hearing last week in Bristol, the sub-committee asked if there was any evidence of any link between SEVs and sexual assaults and they said there were no evidence whatsoever.  The police confirmed it was more an issue with nightclubs.  As a result both licences were renewed by the committee.

·         There is one house at the back of the premises and the applicant is not disputing the fact that this is a densely residential area.  This was not made in the applicant's submission however the clients operation will not adversely impact the residential area. Before making the application the applicant devised a set of conditions and discussed these with the responsible authorities and then the application was submitted.

·         The trading and licensing hours as set out in tab 10 of the bundle shows there are a number of premises trading until 02:00 and 04:00.  If members were dissatisfied with the conditions proposed, they are entitled to add further conditions, for example a formal dispersal policy, however customers will not be leaving on mass. 

·         Drunken behaviour in SEVs is not common.

·         Mr Ojla wants to open until 04:00 to meet demand when it arises and experience has shown demand for SEVs takes place late at night.  He also wants to do it in a way that does not cause harm locally. 

·         Mr Kolvin said he was not personally aware of the crime statistics for Hampshire or that public order offences in Hampshire had doubled.  He understood this area is not a crime hotspot as mentioned in the planning inspector's decision.  He added that if the police considered it an issue they would have made a representation on the application.

·         A map of the other licenced venues along Albert Road and their opening times was included in the applicant's bundle. He said that a number of premises were licenced until 03:00.

·         With reference to the comment that queueing had been witnessed in the vicinity of Wiggle and sexual harassment of women from the people waiting to go in, Mr Kolvin said this was not their experience.  Staff are not sent out to tout for business and there is no leafleting. With regard to queuing there would only be three of four people whilst they are waiting for space in the small lobby area.  Mr Studd reiterated that queueing is not something that is seen outside of SEV premises.  Mr Kolvin added that he was sorry to hear of the sexual harassment and asked if this was reported to the police.  The interested person said she had reported this  to the police and also the licensing authority however the police chose to do nothing.  Mr Ojla added that he had handed the police the CCTV footage but they had chosen not to do anything as it was nothing to do with the club.

·         In response to a question, Mr Ojla confirmed that he operated SEV premises in Bournemouth and Southampton and has never received any complaints.

·         Mr Studd explained that he has visited Wiggle and posed as a customer. This meant he paid for all dances and drinks to give the impression of being a customer.  The primary purpose of his visit is to ensure the venue is complying with all regulations.  This allows him to provide an accurate assessment and is as described in his report.

·         With regard to only 5 people at a time being allowed outside to smoke, Mr Kolvin said 5 people is a maximum.  This would be a small barriered area immediately outside the front door which will be supervised by a SIA operative.  It was felt that this would not cause an issue for other users of Albert Road.   The applicant would need to apply for an amenity on the highway licence in order to put out a barrier. There would be a receptacle for cigarettes and a condition could be added that any debris must be swept each night. 

·         The existing terminal hour for Wiggle is 05:00 and Elegance is 03:00 to be emptied by 03:30.  The applicant is asking for a later terminal hour for Elegance in Albert Road but it was felt that this will not have a detrimental impact. 

·         There were no Temporary Event Notices (TEN) at Elegance in the last year as it has been closed.  There were approximately 12 TENs over the last year at Wiggle asking for an additional hour to 06:00.  This has created no issues.  

·         With regard to people queuing outside, in theory there might momentarily be up to 10 people, if there were five people smoking and five people waiting to enter.

·         Mr Studd explained that SEV premises typically trade alongside every style of premises either on the first floor or basement so they are unobtrusive.

·         Mr Studd explained that he had stood in many outside smoking areas outside SEV premises and had therefore heard the types of conversations which could be repulsive sometimes.  He felt though that this was no different to outside a nightclub and was normally less of an issue as the people are not drunk or hyped up. 

·         Mr Kolvin agreed that his comment earlier about the licence being a 'technical transfer' was incorrect as there is nothing in licensing law to say a licence can be moved from one premises to another.

·         Planning permission was granted on appeal for a period of three years.

·         Reference was made to a systematic review conducted in 2012 looking at 1,536 separate pieces of evidence.  The conclusion was that sex establishments linked to widespread violence, abuse and even murder.   Mr Kolvin said he would need to see this study as this was new evidence that he was unaware of.  Mr Studd said in his experience as a police officer, he had seen no link between SEV premises and sexual assaults and if this was the case he would expect the police to have objected.

·         Reference was made to an incident in Greater Manchester and one in Somerset in 2017 of serious violent crimes including a murder and as a result lap dancing clubs were closed down.   Mr Kolvin said Mr Wallsgrove the applicant's solicitor is a local solicitor and Mr Ojla is a local businessman, therefore they are both are aware of the area and the relevant issues. Mr Studd visited Albert Road on 18 January 2018.  His report was based on working with these type of premises.

·         Reference was made to an article in the Bristol Post was probably in relation to a venue called the Lounge at 30 in 2012 when the city council adopted the new regime and officers went in as they were not complying with their conditions so was closed down.  In Manchester, there is a club called Silks and there was violence occurring and the door staff were not stopping this and this was taken to review and Mr Kolvin thought they were suspended for review.

·         Mr Studd had visited the area on one occasion on Thursday 18 January 2018.  His report is based on his experience in working with these types of premises and his visit was to familiarise himself with the area.  He would not say he knows the area well. 

·         With reference to the comment of one of the representations made about receiving a handbill promoting Wiggle, Mr Kolvin said that his client does not charge £35 entry and does not send out handbills.  There is no intention to introduce handbills as they get dropped. 

·         The applicant will need a tables and chairs licence on the pavement for the smoking area.  With regard to litter a receptacle will be used to use for discarded cigarettes. 

·         The applicant was still in negotiation as to the retail unit that would occupy the ground floor but this would not be of a sexual nature.

·         The licensing consultant would not canvass homes to notify them of the application as this is not their role.

·         Mr Kolvin said he would discuss with his client whether he would be willing to reduce the opening hours slightly but typically these venues open late into the evening.

·         The cost to get into the venue would be £10 after midnight and £5 before midnight. There is a licence condition to prevent any entry for the last hour of trade.  

[the committee had a 15 minute adjournment]

Mr Kolvin said that during the adjournment he had asked Mr Ojla about the licensing hours and he maintains his application for 04:00.  If the Licensing Sub Committee thinks it is proportionate to pull these back it might be to 03:00 and 03:30 close. 

 

The Chair then invited the interested parties to make their representations.  As some had to leave the meeting early, the chair allowed those people to make representations on both the premises and SEV licence applications. 

 

Representations from the interested parties were then heard and their main points are summarised below:

 

 

Ms C Storey (to both premises and SEV reps)

·         Premises licence - She objects on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder.  Realise police have not objected but this does not mean it will not impact the area. Crime is at a level that worries residents.   

·         Additional premises serving alcohol operating late at night will increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour in the surrounding area.

·         Also object on the grounds of public safety.  Will be an increase in the likelihood of criminal acts.  

·         Gender equality issues.  Already heard women to say they will avoid the area and people will not wish to walk past the club and women will fear intimidation and harassment.

·         There will be an increase of noise particularly after 23:00.

·         Increase in traffic including deliveries.  There are already issues of illegal parking in the area.

·         SEV licence - objects on discretionary grounds.  Number of sex establishments is equal to or exceeds the number that the local authority deemed appropriate for the locality.

·         The acceptable number of sex establishments following the public consultation was deemed to be nil. 

·         Also object on the grounds of public safety.  Portsmouth already has a problem with the exploitation of young people across the city.

·         There are a number of homeless people on Albert Road, some of whom are vulnerable individuals and women.  She asked that the impact to these individuals also be considered.

·         Clear from the public response that this is not wanted.  Important to consider the voice of the public. 

·         Society is now recognising the harm of objectifying women.  

Councillor Lee Hunt (ward councillor)

·         Already seen an admission from the applicant that there is an issue around public nuisance as they have offered to reduce the hours of operation back to 03:00 for the end of alcohol sales and 03:30 for close. There will still be issues though between 02:00 and 03:30 hours and residents are entitled to a good night's sleep.

·         Albert Road is a pleasant shopping area with a number of independents shops, cafes etc.  It has local shops serving local people.   Albert Road traders have worked with PCC to improve the area. The Kings Theatre has had significant investment from PCC.  

·         The Wedgewood Rooms which is next door, has events for teenagers and this must be taken into account.

·         This application if allowed will undermine the character of the area.

·         The close proximity of residents to the site needs to be taken into consideration.  People are living to the side, 30-40 metres away across the road and there are many flats above shops.  There are also multiple family dwellings nearby.

·         Portsmouth is one of the most densely populated areas outside of London.

·         Public order offences have doubled in the last year and there are not enough police officers.

·         Residents would accept 02:00 for the end of licensing activity and a terminal hour of 02:30.

 

Ms Charlie Dacke

·         Objects on all four licensing grounds.  The proposed opening hours until 04:00 are inappropriate when there will be minors using the premises next door.

·         It is rubbish to think that people will not know what is going on in the premises.  She regularly sees children walking past the club in Granada Road picking leaflets up off the floor.

·         Issues with police resourcing, clubs have been concentrated in Guildhall Walk area to help with this. The police or anyone cannot predict the future.  There will be a perceived threat of crime and women will not feel safe in this area. 

·         There is evidence of SEVs being linked to an increase in sexual assaults.

·         These clubs are notorious for sending women out to tout for business.

 

Councillor Suzy Horton (ward councillor)

·         Objects on two grounds, public nuisance and crime and disorder.

·         Character is irrelevant and transfer of licence to this club is also irrelevant.

·         The applicant's proposal to decrease the hours of operation to 03:00 rather than 02:00 as put forward by residents indicates that this is not a viable business case.

·         This is a residential area with people living above shops and there are many residential roads nearby. 

·         Cannot use crime and disorder in a blanket way as a reason to refuse however if police are not around in these areas it is a crucial factor.

 

Ms Hilary Read then spoke whose points included:

·         Two SEV applications for Elegance in Granada Road and Wiggle in Surrey Street were considered at a separate hearing on 19 February.  At the last minute the committee agreed to hear both applications as one which was incorrect and the people making deputations pointed this out at the meeting.

·         The SEV application is not accompanied by an EIA.

·         Queried whether the Licensing Committee members have received EIA training.

·         Human Rights Act 1998 applies to these matters committee must be applied.

·         Concerned whether the local authority has the capacity to monitor the conditions put forward. 

·         The staff handbook claims that only five people let outside to smoke at one time.  Concerns raised about how this will be monitored as there is a bus stop nearby and the public should not feel threatened to use it.

In response to one of the points raised, the Committee confirmed to Ms Read that they had all received training prior to the meeting on the SEV policy.  Councillors have also received training on the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.  Councillor Fuller added that he had sat on the meeting of 19 February where the SEV licences for Elegance (Granada Road) and Wiggle were considered and he said the meeting was run properly and disagreed with Ms Read's comment. 

 

Councillor Steve Pitt (ward councillor)

·         Acknowledged the comments of all the people attending today and will address both the premises licence and SEV as he needed to leave.

·         The proposed opening time of 21:00 will coincide with the Wedgewood Rooms many all age events which means any age e.g. college students may be mixing with clientele.  

·         In 2017 there were 30 youth shows and an additional three aimed at young children.  In 2017 there were 27 occasions where the Wedgewood Rooms opened until 04:00.  This application is for the premises to open until 04:00 365 days a year which will be a material change in the character of Albert Road.

·         The Wedgewood Rooms undoubtedly has young people in there on a regular basis and has an extensive policy on protection of children from harm. 

·         The premises licence application is odd as all it states that all licensing activity will end at 04:00, however unsure how someone could purchase a late night refreshment at 03:59 and leave the premises by 04:00. 

·         Surrey Street has the highest level of crime in the city which happens to be where another SEV is situated.

·         The applicant's solicitor reference to transferring the licence from Granada Road to Albert Road is wrong as no such thing exists in licensing law.  This is a new application for a new premises.

·         Asked the committee to consider the impact of people outside the premises smoking.  He suggested that the smoking area ceases to be used 1 hour before terminal hour after 02:00 as this will add to public nuisance in the area.

·         Also suggested that if the application is granted that a condition is added so that the barriers for the smoking area do not contain any branding.

·         Asked the committee to give due weight to the petition which included 475 signatures of local and business owners.  Also two other petitions one containing 608 signatures and one for 240. 

·         Proposed that during Sunday - Thursday the terminal hour is 02:00 and for other licensable activities cease at 01:30, and Friday and Saturday the terminal hour is 03:00 with other licensable activities ceasing at 02:30. To extend beyond that will change the character of Albert Road.

·         With the SEV licence he had concerns that the venue closest to it is the Wedgewood Rooms.  Some will pre load before attending. 

·         Have to consider every application on its merits.  No suggestion that this will not be a well-run premises.

·         SEV policy is very clear - zero quota.

·         The policy refers to character, gender equality, regeneration, tourism and trade - going to see a material increase in trade.

·         Also refers to the use of other premises in the city e.g. dwelling, places of worship, schools, youth clubs, and community centre.  People will say the premises will be operating late in the evening so it will not affect these, but he felt this was extremely relevant as when the policy was written and schools etc. were added the committee would have realised that schools are only open during the day.

Mrs Davies

·         Object to the SEV on discretionary grounds. 

·         Albert Road is a busy and lively street and there are fears that many businesses will leave. This will affect people's livelihoods.

·         7.9 of the council's SEV policy states no sex establishments.

·         She currently feels safe leaving Albert Road late at night on her own however would not if this application is granted. 

·         Referenced a report in 2003 by Camden lap dancing club where reports of rape increased by 15%.  This is a home office endorsed report.

·         The Wedgewood Rooms are proud of their all age policy that brings in families.  They would not want the people leaving their venue to meet people arriving or leaving the SEV.

·         Pleased to see in the clubs code of conduct that clients must not make lewd comments or harass its staff and if they do they will be asked to leave. This however means that they will be thrown out onto the street fuelled with alcohol and sexually charged and also angry.

·         This application will not make Portsmouth an attractive, sustainable city or make people want to live here.

·         The Wedgewood Rooms offers a diverse programme and has a fantastic reputation but allowing this application would create serious concerns about attending future events.

·         Life House is nearby where vulnerable residents with mental health issues come for a safe space.  They serve evening meals on a Thursday evening when the club would be open.

Mrs Bonner-Janes (making objection to both premises and SEV now as needed to leave early)

·         She lives 3 minutes' walk away from the site and works as a children and families social worker and has seen consequences of child protection issues first hand.

·         Objects on the grounds of crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm. 

·         Known the applicant for many years and believe his intentions are honourable.

·         Impossible to regulate.

·         Will see an increase in rape culture outside of working hours and an increase in criminal activity.  This is in the heart of the community and men are more likely to attend on their way home after leaving pubs.

 

Mr Mitchell (making objection to both premises and SEV now as needed to leave early)

·         The premises licence application will change the character of Albert Road and will make other premises apply to extend their opening hours.

·         It is disingenuous to claim that there is no relationship between the number of licenced premises until 04:00 and an increase in crime and disorder.

·         Not querying the applicant's ability to run the premises.

·         The location is near to other pubs so the majority of people attending the SEV will have consumed alcohol.

·         With regard to the SEV application he raised concerns with the site being close to two schools and said the committee must consider their policy.

·         The Wedgewood Rooms are very well managed in dealing with underage children at their all age events.

·         Horrified that children will potentially be walking to school along Albert Road and see the SEV.

Andrew Pearce

·         Owns a well-respected business next to the proposed application site. This application will be disrespectful to the area.

·         He offers late night appointments to brides and if this application is approved he will need to amend his business hours as his staff have said they will not work in the evenings anymore. Many of his clients have said that the SEV next door if approved would have had an impact on whether they chose to buy from him.  Why should he have to amend his business hours?

·         Signage next to shop would affect business.

·         His lease is up in 18 months but why should he feel pressurised to move premises.

·         The application would create an increase in street litter.

·         Late night activities will increase.

·         Security issues, who will be responsible for any damages to shops? Traders have been told they are not allowed to put cameras up outside shops.

·         The use of drugs will increase - there is already an issue at the back of the store. Behind his store is private land and have been major issues with fly tipping.

·         Parking will increase and there are already issues.

·         Will be detrimental to existing businesses.

 

Mr Adair

·         Opposed to plans a local resident.  Albert Road has developed into a popular area. 

·         Increase in noise with men shouting in street.  A good night's sleep is a right not a privilege

·         The Council has a duty to protect.  This is a densely populated area that backs onto Harold Road and is this proposal is unacceptable.

·         This would alter the character of the area and be a nuisance to families living in the area. 

Members Questions to Interested Parties

In response to questions the following matters were clarified:

·         All along Albert Road the premises alcohol sales end at 02:00 with the terminal hour being 02:30.  The licence needs to be fair, reasonable and proportionate.

·         Councillor Hunt said there are 12,000 on the electoral roll and 16,500 on the census in Central Southsea ward.

The applicant had included a printout of opening hours of all shops, restaurants and bars on Albert Road which suggested that there were several that are open until 03:00.  Councillor Hunt said that these are all late night restaurants and he has been into all and they are all horrified about this application.  

Summing Up

Interested Parties

Councillor Hunt
He said he had listened carefully and noted the applicants offer to reduce the terminal hour from 04:00 to 03:00. If you look at the locality it is recognised that there are no pubs open until 04:00.  Monday to Wednesday some pubs do not open.  If the licence is granted until 04:00, it will be bringing more people into the area that otherwise would not be there.  He urged the committee to observe their SEV policy. 

 

Ms Dacke

The application will impact all four of the licensing objectives and she has been a victim of sexual harassment outside of another SEV in the city which has been reported to the responsible authorities. 

 

Councillor Horton

The premises licence application is aimed at drinkers and getting them into the area between 02:00 and 04:00, which will have a material impact on the character of the area. 

 

Ms Read

Asked about the clarity of the process.  In response Mrs Humphreys advised that the notice of hearing is sent to all representees.  There is specific reference in the premises licence as to how deputations will be heard and this gives a link to the council's website detailing how the committee will work and the process that will be followed.   

Councillor Pitt

When he made his request to make a deputation today and asked whether he needed to explain his reasons and the evidence he will be giving, and was specifically told no.  This was the last day for representations to be submitted and therefore the last day any information could be submitted. He confirmed this with the licensing department.   He asked the committee to not set a precedent for a venue in this area that is not serving food.  This is not a restaurant and asked that the opening hours at the very least be kept in line with the Wedgewood Rooms.  In response to the process query, Mrs Humphreys said she would remind staff about the process and provision that representees can expand on their written deputation but not introduce new information at the committee meeting.  She apologised if there had been any confusion. 

 

Ms Davies

No further comments

 

Ms Bonner-Janes

This application will not benefit the area, reduce crime nor improve the reputation of the area.

Mr Mitchell

Wished to emphasise the point that the majority of other premises that are open until 03:00 are restaurants serving food. 

 

Mr Pearce

Businesses all south of Albert Road are eatery establishments whereas the north of Albert Road is mainly residential.

 

Mr Adair

Was a police officer in Hampshire Constabulary for 37 years and know that the force has lost 1,000 police officers so are very stretched.  After 03:00 there are 8 police officers to cover the city. 

 

Applicant Summing up

Mr Kolvin said that there had been some crossover between the representations made as some of the representees needed to leave.  The Licensing Act hearing to hear the evidence on impact on the licensing objectives. 

 

He made 4 key points:

(1)  There has been very limited comment on the proposed conditions;

(2)  The views of responsible authorities based on their experience with regulating the night time economy.  They raised no objection to application.

(3)  Mr Ojla's reputation in relation to his experience - only one person has made reference to this.

(4)  The evidence of Mr Studd.  His evidence shows that a SEV does not cause any environmental harm.  There has been a suggestion made that criminal activity takes place as a result of SEV however each area will be covered by CCTV.  The LA is entitled to visit at any time and dip sample the CCTV. 

With reference to the comments made in the representations about the impact of a SEV opening next to the Wedgewood Rooms when they hold their all age events, Mr Kolvin said this would have more weight if the Wedgewood Rooms had made a representation. If the committee shared these concerns they could add a condition about restricting the use of handbills and staff touting for business outside the premises dressed inappropriately. 

 

It has been suggested that most of the late opening venues are restaurants.  If planning to open a bar/nightclub would expect there to be a representation from the police.  The way to ensure is to impose a condition that only operate in accordance with SEV licence and hope that would resolve the issue.

 

With regard to concerns about the outside smoking area, the committee could add a condition that the smoking area is to be agreed by the licensing authority and also be a supervised all times with SIA and CCTV.  It could also could add a condition that barriers are not to be branded. 

 

Regarding concerns about litter, a condition could be added that all litter must be cleared outside the premises at the end of each night. 

 

Regarding concerns about dispersal from the venue the committee could add a condition about a formal dispersal policy.  The applicant has tried to compromise and offered an earlier terminal hour.  It is hoped that this will be taken in good spirit. 

 

The Chair advised that this ended the premises licence application and a short adjournment for lunch would be taken at 2:15pm.  The SEV application would then be considered after lunch. 

 

Members met on a separate date for their deliberations and came to the following decision:

DECISION:

 

In the Matter of the Licensing Act 2003:

Application for grant of a premise licence - Elegance, 149 Albert Road, Southsea PO4 0JW.

 

The Committee has carefully considered the application before it for the grant of a premise licence and has also considered the representations made in relation to this application, both made orally and in writing. The Committee has also heard the comments of the applicant's leading counsel and further notes the fact that in addition a number of petitions have been submitted together with a number of written objections running from page 39 of the bundle to page 232.

 

The Committee have considered the relevant sections of the Portsmouth City Council Licensing Policy.

 

 

The Committee look to all the Responsible Authorities but mainly the Police for guidance and assistance in determining the effect of a licensing activity in terms of all the licensing objectives, but principally in terms of the Police, prevention of crime and disorder- the Committee should but are not obliged to accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the police. The fact that no representations have been made is of significance and the Committee give appropriate weight to that fact. A similar view is given to the fact that none of the other Responsible Authorities have made any representation.  

 

The above having been said the Committee is engaged by reason of the number of objections correctly received in having to consider the current application. The Committee was impressed by the number and thoughtfulness of the representations and able to conclude that the majority of comments pertained to the licensing objectives of:

·         Prevention of crime and disorder.

·         Prevention of public nuisance.

·         Protection of children from harm.

·         Public safety.

 

 

being allegedly engaged. Having looked at the comments there is no evidence to link any incidents to the premises and that the mere "likelihood" of such incidents occurring in the future is not such as to enable the application to be rejected. The Committee also note that parking concerns cannot be taken into consideration in determining this application. 

Additionally there is no evidence to suggest that the applicants' have materially failed to promote any of the relevant licensing objectives indeed the operating schedule shows a high level of consideration to the necessary steps being taken to promote on a continuing basis all of the licensing objectives. 

 

 

In considering the application for a grant of a premise licence the Committee is mindful of the following facts as having been established upon a balance of probability and further that they have been specifically taken to the relevant parts of the Statutory Guidance under sec182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

1.        The premise will trade from the first floor of the venue with a capacity limited to 100 patrons. It is clear that the applicant has extensive and relevant experience within the licensing trade having run a number of establishments without difficulty.    

 

2.       The premise is not in an area of special policy or cumulative impact and there is no evidence the application sought would be inconsistent with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance or the applicable policy considerations.      

 

3.        The premise previously held a club premises certificate which permitted alcohol sales and regulated entertainment, music and dance and the playing of recorded music until 23:59 Sunday to Thursday and until 01:00 Friday and Saturday.

 

In addition and having considered the Statutory Guidance (section 182 of the Licensing Act) the Committee is also aware that any Responsible  Authority and indeed any other person may ask this Committee to review the licence because of any matter arising at the premises in connection with any of the licensing objectives. This is a key protection and is set out at paragraph 11.1 of the policy.

 

 

However, whilst a review can be initiated it is clear that having established a number of facts one of the common threads running through the objections is relevant to the operating schedule timing in that it is such that a closing time of 04.00 would be potentially a problem in that the following was considered by the Committee as having a material bearing:

 

·         The premise is situated in a densely residential area and persons are living in close vicinity to the premise. 

 

·         The risk of persons living above shops and businesses in Albert Road experiencing public nuisance is a particular concern.

 

 

On the basis of the above the Committee would be prepared to grant a premise licence with amendments to the operating schedule and hours of licensable activity as follows:

 

1.    that all licensable activity will commence at 21:00 and terminate 30 minutes before terminal hour which will be 00:30 on Sundays and 03:00 Monday to Saturday;

 

 

2.    that prominent and clear notices are displayed at all exits requesting the public to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premise and the area quietly and such notices are drawn to the attention of the public when exiting;

 

 

3.    that the entrance and exit of the premise is kept clear and free from litter or debris left by the public;

 

4.    In the event that a smoking area is established outside the premises, the use of the smoking area ceases one hour before terminal hour.

 

          

The Committee can find no reason to decline the licence application as sought with the conditions proffered and the enhanced conditions above being proportionate and consistent with respect to the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives.  The premises licence is therefore granted subject to those conditions.

There is a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.