-
Agenda item
Application for a Premises Licence: Grand Elektra, 53-57 Robertson Street, Hastings
Minutes:
In accordance with the terms of reference of the Licensing Committee, the Chief Legal Officer invited nominations for the appointment of Chair for item 14, Grand Elektra. Councillor Roberts moved that Councillor Sinden should take the Chair. This was seconded by Councillor Charlesworth.
RESOLVED (unanimously) that Councillor Sinden be appointed as Chair for the duration of the meeting.
Councillor Sinden set out the procedure that the Sub-Committee would adopt (in accordance with Standard Practice), all parties confirmed they understood this.
The Corporate Director, Environmental Health, submitted a report on an application for a premises licence at Grand Elektra, 53-57 Robertson Street, Hastings, as a result of representations received under the licensing objective for the “Prevention of Crime and Disorder and the Prevention of Public Nuisance”. Mr Brown, Licensing Manager, presented the report.
Some additional supporting information from Invest Nightlife had been distributed to the committee members prior to the meeting, which was not part of formal documentation for the agenda.
Mr Brown explained that the representations from responsible authorities had reduced from four to three. East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service had withdrawn their representation.
Mr Savill, Barrister for Sussex Police said the Council Special Saturation Policy (Cumulative Impact) applies to all applications in the Town centre, the presumption is in favour of refusal, therefore it is for the applicant to demonstrate that there will be no negative cumulative impact, therefore it is not relevant on how well run the premises is.
Mr Jerome Silva, legal representative for the applicant was present, he asked questions of officers regarding the previous licence to which he was reminded that the review was about the negative cumulative impact on the existing premises. Mr Savill added that the policy applied to all applications and did not need comparison with other premises; it would be arbitory to identify an individual premise. The Chief Legal officer confirmed that it was for the applicant to demonstrate there would be no negative cumulative impact.
Mr Ballam, Environmental Protection Officer, referred to the history of general noise complaints late at night in the area as detailed in his submission on page 103 of the agenda, Appendix C. He raised concern regarding the lack of detail in the application; the extended opening hours and potential for noise. He commented on the Special Saturation Policy and the fact that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that there would be no negative cumulative impact.
Mr Silva asked Mr Ballam if sound proofing the link corridor between 53 & 54 Robertson Street would alleviate his concerns. Mr Ballam said the complaints received related to the doors. Mr Silva went on to ask if the later licensing hours would lead to a gradual dispersal of people and easier to control the crowd. Mr Ballam said there would still be sufficient noise breakout.
Mr Scrase, Senior Licensing Officer, explained the history of the previous premises. He said he had concerns regarding the link corridor and public safety and the lack of information regarding daytime use of the premises. He believed that patrons of other premises which closed earlier would move onto Grand Elektra and that it would have a negative effect if they dispersed 400 people into the town centre. He said he had had a meeting with the applicants to make them aware, so they could address the issues. He believed the town centre saturation policy had not been addressed.
Members sought further clarification on the history of the premises.
Mrs Nicholson, resident in Cambridge Road, expressed concern regarding fighting, loud music and doors left open. She said the noise had been intolerable.
Mr Oliver Ibrahim, applicant, said he said been working in the industry since he was 18yrs and had set up his own cocktail business. Between himself and his business partner who operates Karma Security, they had 30 years knowledge and experience. He would have day to day control of the premises. He said they wanted to address the concerns and to contribute culturally, not just run as a nightclub.
Mr Silva asked Mr Ibrahim why he wanted to change the premises hours. Mr Ibrahim said it would create a slower rate of dispersal in which people could disperse over a longer period of time. Peak capacity he said is always 1 hour before closing hour. He explained that if the premises closed prematurely, people would not want to go home and will look for other smaller venues. He said he would be running daytime events at the premises such as corporate events to give a broader range of activities. He explained the measures they had taken to improve the premises, but measures concerning ID could be tightened up to satisfy the committee if necessary.
Mr Brown asked Mr Ibrahim why they had asked for specific hours. In response Mr Ibrahim said he needed later hours, the business would not survive on the earlier operating hours. He spoke of the other premises competing for trade in the town.
Mr Brown verified matters concerning tables outside the premises, and explained that were controlled by East Sussex County Council under a separate licence. Tables were not permitted outside the premises after 11pm. He went on to say that the Special Saturation Policy came into effect in 2007 under a review following major crime and disorder in the town. They identified a concentration of licensing premises in the town centre and brought in 3 cumulative impact zones. The evidence was provided by police data; local residents and the health body, amongst others. He said it was for the applicant to prove there will be no negative cumulative impact.
Mr Savill said it was not a comparative exercise of the premises that previously existed. The test was not “will there be more negative cumulative impact”, but “will the grant of the licence give rise to negative cumulative impact”. A comparatively large night club will give rise to cumulative impact. He said the Secretary of State was clear in its guidance about people beyond a licenced premises. The cumulative impact is about people who have left the premises, for example people get in taxis, people hang around in the town centre. The cumulative impact is not premise specific. Therefore, the internal steps on how the premises is run does not address cumulative impact. No matter how well structured the operating structure, it does not address people beyond control of premises. He recommended the application be refused.
Mr Paul Mandy, Business Partner and owner of Karma Security said he managed the area for 20 years and owned a premise in Hastings. He assisted the police with dispersals but felt that issues were not just about dispersal within the club.
In his summary, Mr Ballam said he was concerned about the cumulative impact and was worried about noise breakout from music and patrons.
Mr Silva said he did not agree with the Police’s interpretation of the saturation policy. He said there was a link between the establishment and how it was run and how people behave in the street. He felt that Mr Ibrahim had given clear evidence based and informed examples of how the business would operate, such as the dispersal policy, slowing down the music, increasing the lights 1hr before closing time, ID scanning. The premises was not just a nightclub, but would be a multi-faceted premises for residents, youth groups etc, offering courses during the day. He said it was not about competing with other premises, but about the Police connection with anti-social behaviour.
RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Sub-Committee refuse the application for the following reasons:-
The Committee have listened very carefully to all submissions. The applicant stated various control measures which did not form part of this application. Therefore, we have no alternative but to refuse this application as the applicant has failed to demonstrate in its operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the four licensing objectives.
The Committee have had regard to its own policy and the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Supporting documents:
- Application for a Premises Licence - Grand Elektra, Robertson Street, item 14. PDF 120 KB
- Appendix A - Application for a Premises Licence, Grand Elektra, item 14. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix B - Map of venue, Grand Elektra, item 14. PDF 133 KB
- Appendix C - Additional Representations, Grand Elektra, item 14. PDF 959 KB
- Appendix D - Letter of Support, Grand Elektra, item 14. PDF 50 KB
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.