Agenda item

Hampshire Restaurants Ltd have applied for the renewal of the licence to use the premises as a sexual entertainment venue, providing relevant entertainment, for a further twelve-month period.

This matter is brought before the Sub-Committee for determination.

Present:

From BCP Council:

Sarah Rogers, Senior Licensing Officer

Michelle Cutler, Clerk to the Sub-Committee

Joe Cannon – Barrister, Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee

The Chair made introductions and explained the procedure for the hearing which was agreed by all parties.

The Licensing Officer presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated and a copy of which appears as Appendix A to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application made by Hampshire Restaurants Limited for the renewal of the licence to use the premises as a sexual entertainment venue, providing relevant entertainment, for a further twelve-month period.

The Licensing Authority received 2 valid objections.

The following persons attended the hearing and addressed the Sub-Committee to expand on the points made in their written submissions:

For the Applicant:

Julia Palmer - Solicitor, JCP Law, representing the Applicant

Mrs Alex Ivins - the Applicant

Mr Glen Nice – Consultant for the Applicant

The 2 persons objecting were not in attendance.

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of all parties present and was grateful for the responses received. All parties had the opportunity to ask questions. All parties were invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision. Before concluding the hearing, the Legal Advisor advised all parties of the right of appeal.

Decision

The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Officer, Sarah Rogers, and from Julia Palmer on behalf of the Applicant, who spoke to her written submissions. It was noted that she addressed a number of the points raised by those objecting in her written submissions, and orally, including a number of ways in which the matters raised by those objecting had been acknowledged and addressed. In particular she confirmed that it would be a condition of the licence, if renewed, that CCTV images would be made available to the police upon request. She also confirmed that the work to refurbish the facade of the premises had been done.

Objector 1 was not present, having sent apologies in advance. The Sub-Committee took account of her written objection and put a number of the points raised in it to the Applicant via Ms Palmer. Objector 2 was not present either, having sent apologies shortly before the start of the hearing and again, the Sub-Committee took full account of the contents of her objection.

The Sub-Committee agreed that section 10 of the SEV Policy applied to these premises, as an ‘existing licence’ named in the Policy. Because objections had been received, the application was considered in light of the relevant legislation, and in particular paragraph 12(3)(d) of the 1976 Act. No objection raised any matter going to any of the other potentially relevant sections.

In respect of the character of the locality, the Sub-Committee accepted that it had not changed materially since the previous renewal, or indeed for some years, and agreed that it was one of the principal locations within the area for the night-time economy. There had been no substantial changes to the uses to which buildings in the vicinity were put, and in terms of the premises itself, the Sub-Committee was pleased to hear of the works that the Applicant had either done or was proposing to do and saw no basis on which to refuse the application on this basis.

Overall, noting the exemplary record of these premises, the annual renewals without complaint or issue, and the constructive response to the points raised by those who objected to this application, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the licence should be renewed for another year.

They thus voted to grant the application and renew the licence.