Agenda item - Churchill's - Application for a Premises Licence

115.1    The Panel considered a report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection which required them to determine a new premises licence application under the Licensing Act 2003, in respect of ”Churchill’s”, 52 Church Road, Hove.

115.2    Mr Bulger was in attendance on behalf of the Environmental Protection Team of Brighton and Hove City Council. Councillor Wealls was present in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. Mrs Powell and Mr Oldfield were in attendance to put their objections as local residents dwelling in Grand Avenue Mansions and on behalf of the Residents Association for that block, Grand Avenue Mansions Hove, Ltd. Mr Walton was in attendance representing the applicants.

115.3    The Licensing Officer, Ms Cornell gave a presentation detailing the application. She explained that the application was for a new premises licence at 52 Church Road, Hove, a basement restaurant and lounge bar with provision of regulated entertainment and alcohol sales. It was explained that a number of amendments had been made to the application as originally submitted. This had been sent to all parties including the Panel on 30 December. In addition to proposed amendments to the hours of operation conditions in relation to certain regulated entertainment had been removed or amended. Recorded music had been removed, dance had been removed and there had been amendments to the provisions. In the same letter the applicant had provided an amended plan indicating areas within the premises which would be used exclusively for waiter/waitress service only. Colour copies of these plans were also available at the meeting.

115.4    Ms Cornell explained that 30 representations had been received from local residents, Environmental Protection, and a local Councillor. The representations received had set out concerns relating to the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety and protection of children from harm. A number of representations had not been accepted as they were either out of time or not in the vicinity. Even although the Police had not put in a formal representation they had been liaising with the applicant and together they had agreed some conditions which had been e mailed by the applicants on 5 January and could be found on Page 20 of their hearing papers. The premises did not fall within the cumulative impact area or the special stress areas.

111.5    Councillor Cobb sought clarification of the position in respect of recorded music and it was explained that there would be no amplified music and that any music provided would either be low level background music or non amplified live music, for example classical guitar.

115.6    Councillor Wealls sought clarification of the changes between the application as originally submitted and as now proposed.

115.7    Mr Bulger asked for clarification of the seating area within the premises. He confirmed that volume control equipment would not be required now that now no amplified music was to be provided. He also referred to the interior seating area stressing the need for proper controls to be put into place in relation to them. He also referred to the need to ensure that measures were put into place to ensure appropriate dispersal from the premises in the evening, particularly at the close of business.

115.8    Councillor Wealls set out his concerns and objections in respect of the premises, speaking in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. Whilst noting and welcoming the amendments to the application which had been offered up by the applicants, he remained concerned regarding the introduction of this business into a residential area. Whist it was recognised that Church Road where the entrance to the premises would be located was a mixed area, its Grand Avenue frontage was not. Residents of the area already suffered a degree of night time noise and disturbance and did not wish to be subjected to any more. He sought assurances that if granted the premises could not then revert to a burger bar. It was confirmed that if the licence was granted, the premises would be subject to any conditions imposed. No changes could be made to the operating schedule or conditions unless permission was given to vary the existing licence.

115.9    Councillor Wealls referred to the recent successful application by “Havanna Spoon” which although nearby fronted wholly onto Church Road and was located in close proximity to 8/9 flats as opposed to around 56. There were also concerns in relation to potential impact in the event of incidents, especially at weekends, “Operation Marble” did not extend that far out from the city centre and it was acknowledged that Police resources were stretched in the city centre, at weekends, this in turn impacted on response times elsewhere in the city.

115.10  Mr Oldfield spoke on behalf of residents of Grand Avenue Mansions. He stated that he had lived in Grand Avenue for 28 years and that residents had expressed grave concerns in relation to the potential noise and other nuisance which could arise. There were particular concerns in respect of the noise which could result from taxis picking up and dropping off and the fumes from cigarettes being smoked outside effecting the residential dwellings located above. There were public benches located nearby. There were also concerns that those using the premises could gather there too which would give rise to further disturbance.

115.11  Mr Walton spoke on behalf of the applicants stating that they were anxious to address the issues and concerns raised by local residents and the Ward Councillor, amendments had been made to the application as originally submitted in order to seek to address them. The applicant had worked closely with the Police in order to agree a set of conditions commensurate with a sophisticated venue which would not give rise to problems. The substantial packs which had been sent to the parties had been put together to indicate the work carried out by the applicants and those working on their behalves to indicate the measures they had taken to address objections received. Mr Walton stated that this was evidenced by the fact that the Police had not raised objections to the proposed licence. Mr Bateup of the Police Licensing Unit was present at the meeting, although not to make representations and confirmed when asked by the Chair, that the applicants had consulted with them in respect of their application. Notwithstanding that Operation Marble did not extend that far westwards it was confirmed that the Police and officers of the Council sought to ensure that licence conditions were complied with. Any complaints received which indicated that they were not, were investigated.

115.12  Mr Walton stated that given the concerns that had been expressed by objectors, the applicants were agreeable to not using an outside seating area and to using the inside area of the premises only. As reference had been made to another nearby premises, Mr Walton was also anxious to receive re-assurances that the application would be judged on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that this would be the case. The premises was aimed at a mature up-market clientele and not at younger drinkers, or those who were attracted to vertical drinking establishments.

115.13  In answer to questions Mr Walton confirmed the taxi pick up/drop off arrangements which would be put into place, also in relation to CCTV and storage/removal of rubbish. It was pointed out in answer to questions by the objectors that matters in relation to building control, disabled access and compliance with fire safety regulations did not fall within the remit of the licensing regime.

115. 14 Councillor Sykes referred to arrangements for the removal of glass for re-cycling and it was confirmed that this would not take place after 8.00pm until the following morning.

115.15  Councillor Deane, the Chair enquired whether the premises would be a new venture by the applicant and whether they had experience in operating a similar premises. It was explained that the applicant who was based in Worthing had varied company interests had been looking for a suitable venue for sometime and was hoping that this business could provide a blue print for similar future ventures. The designated DPS had broad experience in the licensed trade.

115.16  Ms Sidell, the Legal Adviser to the Panel confirmation was sought that as it was no longer proposed that that there would be an outside seating area, that customers would not be allowed to take drinks from the premises and would only be allowed outside to smoke. It was confirmed that this would be the case.

115.17  There were no more questions and Ms Cornell therefore gave the closing submission on behalf of the Licensing Authority. She explained that it was important for each application to be judged on its own merits which should take account of representations received and the steps which were necessary to promoting the licensing objectives. After considering all relevant issues, the licensing authority it might grant the application subject to such conditions that were consistent with the operating schedule.

115.18  If the Panel decided to grant the application then any conditions added to the licence to meet the licensing objectives should be clear, precise and enforceable. Alternatively, the licensing authority could refuse the application on the grounds that this was necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

115.19  Mr Bulger, Environmental Protection stated that he welcomed the removal of the outside seating area and considered that the licence application was satisfactory on the basis of the amended conditions proposed and those agreed to by the applicant at the meeting.

115.20  Councillor Wealls stated that he was grateful to the applicants for the amendments they had made to the originally submitted scheme, particularly in relation to  removal of the outside seating area. He still had some concerns, however, in relation to the issues which could arise in consequence of taxis picking up and setting down very close to such a busy junction.

115.21  Mr Oldfield welcomed the changes that had been made stating that he still had some concerns in respect of the possible impact on residents living in the upper floors of the building as a result of customers smoking outside. Whilst the impact of one or two people smoking outside might be negligible, this might not be the case if there were a larger number, which could also give rise to noise disturbance.

115.22  Mr Walton then gave the closing submission on behalf of the applicants. He stressed that the applicant had gone to great lengths to address any objections received. It was not intended that the premises would operate as a night club.

115.23  The Chair explained that the Panel had listened carefully to all the arguments and representations put forward. The panel had considered the reduced operating hours offered by the applicant, and the changes to the type and duration of the music, with no recorded music or dancing. The Panel were therefore granting the licence on the basis of the hours and conditions agreed with Sussex Police as listed on Page 20 of the documents submitted by the applicant ie.

              10.00am-midnight, Sun-Thur, and

              10.00am – 1.30am Fri-Sat,

              With the terminal hour of 12.30am, Sun-Thur and 2.00am, Fri-Sat

              Recycling and waste containers will be kept in the rear area and not used for glass disposal between 10.00am and 7.00am.

              The Panel noted the concerns of residents with regard to use of the outside space and welcomed the applicant’s offer to withdraw the use of tables and chairs outside.

              Smoking was permitted outside 52 Church Road only, and no drinks were to be taken or consumed outside at any time.

              The Panel noted that the applicant had a dispersal policy in place, and would operate a Challenge 25 system. Warrant cards for military active service members would be accepted.

              The Panel recognised and welcomed the steps taken by the applicants to meet the concerns of residents in developing this application and believed that in its amended form it would promote the licensing objectives.

115.24  RESOLVED – That a new premises licence be granted to Churchill’s, 52 Church Road, Hove in the terms set out above.

            Note :The Legal Adviser to the Panel explained that the applicant’s would receive details of the decision in writing and that details of their appeal rights would also be included.