Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] The fire alarm sounds, please exit the building by way of the nearest available sign to fire exit route and make your way to the assembly point at the war memorial in the gardens opposite the front of this building in born Avenue. Finally, please ensure background noise is kept to minimum and mobile phones and other devices are turned off or switched to silent for the duration of the meeting. For those in the room, this includes turning off microphones and turning the volume down completely on your laptops. Thank you. Thank you. I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving any apologies. That's not received. Thank you. Thank you. Declaration of interest. I'll ask each member in turn. They've got any declarations of interest. I don't. I have no declarations of interest. Thank you. Now, I also have no declaration of interest. Thank you. The protocol for speaking. The protocol for speaking at meetings, the licensing subcommittee is included in the agenda sheet for this meeting. So that brings us to item five. Now, I'll ask each participant to introduce themselves and state their role, starting with myself. This meeting is brought before the licensing committee for determination. I'll now ask each participant to introduce themselves and state their role, starting with myself. Councillor. Lawrence Williams. I'm the member for Littledown and Iford. I am Councillor. I'm the member for Queen's Park and Charmons. And I'm Councillor Bioncastle member for Musclef and Stroudon Park. Thank you. Thank you. We've got Councillor Adrian, Chaplain, Laura is a reserved member, but he won't be required to participate as we're all present. But he may, if he wishes, reserve, observe the training purposes. Good morning. I'm Sarah Rogers, a principal licensing officer, BCP council. Good morning. I'm Linda Cole. I'm the legal advisor to the subcommittee this morning. Good morning. I'm Michelle Cartner. I'm the clerk to the subcommittee. Thank you. Finally, please may I remind all parties speaking not to repeat the information which they've already given in writing, but to expand on their written representations. All questions are to be asked through the chair. And there will be no cross-examination of parties. I now ask the licensing officer to present the report. Yes, I probably should, shouldn't I? I should have turned the page on. Yes, I'd like if I may to ask everybody to introduce themselves, starting with the applicants. Port Lodge, managing director at Wiggle. Thank you. I'm Tara Nodler, the general manager for Wiggle. Thank you. And the objector. I'm Susan Stockwell, the objector. Thank you. Before I run through the procedure, which I should have done earlier, please may I check that everyone has been given notice of their intention to speak of being identified. And any person who wishes to withdraw a representation or she's not to speak has also been identified. If there are no comments, I'll take this as correct. I'll now explain the proposed procedure and order of speaking to the hearing as follows. The licensing officer will present the report. The objector will speak first, questions of the objector by members of the committee subcommittee to go first. The applicant will then make their representations, questions of the applicant by members of the subcommittee to go first. All parties will then be given the opportunity to sum up with the party who spoke last to go first. The hearing will then conclude. The subcommittee will deliberate in private with the legal advisor and the clerk present. Where possible notification of the subcommittee's decision will be given within a period of five working days, beginning with the day or the last day in which the hearing was held. The notification of the decision will be included information on the right of appeal as appropriate. And now I want parties to confirm their agreement on the proposed procedure or make representations. Firstly, with the applicants to confirm agreement with that. Yes, we do. Thank you. This is Stockwell. Oh, yes, chair. Thank you. Sarah. Yes, thank you. And finally, the call. Yes, chair. Thank you. Now I'll go to the page I've gone before. Finally, can I please remind all parties in speaking, not to repeat information that they've already given them writing, but to expand on their written representations. All questions are to be asked through the chair and there will be no cross examination of parties. Now ask the licensing officer to present the report. Thank you. Application is made by well-hot limited for the renewal of the sex establishment license held at one five nine or cross stretch road for a further 12 month period. The premises have been operating as an adult lap dancing club for the past 18 years, since they took over in 2006, when at that time the premises were operating as a cabaret restaurant. They've had the benefit of a sexual entertainment venue license, permitting the life performance of nudity, following new legislation, which came into effect in April 2010. The application made complies with the relevant legislation and the necessary sites and newspaper notices were published in accordance with that. As a result, one objection was received. There have not been any complaints received during the last 12 months, and no need for the licensing officers to visit the premises to ensure any compliance. No objections were received from any of the responsible authorities which are identified under the licensing act, who were also consulted. The reference has been made in Mrs Stockwell's objection to our sex establishment policy document. But please note, we do not have a current policy following the quashing of it by judicial review. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Sarah. Mrs Stockwell, I would like you if you would mind to state your case now. Thank you. Thank you chair. Could I just start by asking if I'm able to question the officer's report, which I wasn't quite clear from the procedure. It's just on two points. Yes, you can. Firstly that I've raised it in another hearing that the officer's report written report suggests that there is a presumption in favour of licensing for this form of license. That certainly is the case for the 2003 act licenses. But on my understanding, it's not the case for this form of licensing for sex establishments. I have scared the legislation and I couldn't find it there. Yes, thank you. So it's not set out, certainly not set out in the 82 Miss Lanes provisions act that deals with sex establishments, but generally, as a whole through case law, the idea of licensing and the decisions being made in it's like a quasi judicial nature, there is generally a presumption to grant any application unless there's a need not to grant it. Because it decisions being made, not in the court of law, it's being made by local people in their job and the decision making process for this type of application has in the legislation, it comes down to the local authority. But generally that the whole idea with licensing is it's all about public safety risk assessments. And, and there, and also their common knowledge and what information is brought to them by, you know, people that, that may be in the know for, you know, we would take information from police officers. I mean, you have to consult with police officers anyway with sexual establishment licensing, but, but generally we would go as far as any responsible authorities, just to sort of gather that information in. Yes, I don't accept that because it's been specifically included in the 2003 act and if there were general case law, there would be no need to do that. So I'm happy to go and look at the case long, which I haven't been able to find. Would you proceed. Thank you. So, as I understand it chair the procedure here is unlike other licensing hearings that I don't read my objection out to you, but I just expand on it. Which leads me rather at a loss. I can just do a sort of whistle stop tour of it and perhaps you could stop me if you think I'm repeating. Well, we've all had the opportunity to read. Yes, exactly. There's no need to repeat it. But if you got anything additional you'd like to add. This is the time to do it. Well, since the applicants response to my objection came in, I think I can possibly mention a suitability head, which is that I would suggest, and this is expanding on suitability, that the quashed policy on licensing of sex establishment is still relevant because it was adopted by our full council. So, although it's not a policy doesn't exist anymore. The fact that full council adopted it at all suggests that the contents are reasonable. And therefore, if you look at what is suggested as being the right way to look at suitability as in honesty and an understanding of the license itself. But that's a reasonable thing to do for you that the prospect of a judicial review on the basis that you've behaved unreasonably by considering how well the applicant complies with regulations in other areas outside of licensing is reasonable. Because your colleagues in the accounts in the previous administration did say that the applicant needed to be able to demonstrate that they could understand the license well enough to be able to comply with it. And the reason I've brought up in my objection, various regulatory matters outside of licensing and insider, including the previous breaches that have been brought to the attention of your committee and your officers. But that's an indication of unsuitability. In addition, the mention of honesty, well, honesty is as honest as it does, there's chance in your arm, that's taking a few risks. And there are things that might be to do with not understanding, but in the, as I would be repeating myself if I mentioned what happened in Weymouth of telling the committee that the locals are quite happy. Yeah, you will be repeating this. Yes, I won't carry on then. I think I'm obliged to share. The location as the applicant has mentioned, this is something that's been brought up previously. And frankly, as long as there's no policy adopted, which says it's absolutely fine to have a strict club or other sex establishment in the locations specified by the policy that was adopted and then quashed. Then I think you're still going to carry on seeing me licensing hearings because when a strip club is operating in an area, which conflicts with the policy that was adopted, then that means that if you choose to refuse on location from which there's no appeal, then you can do that. You can do that without fear of a judicial review because it's perfectly reasonable to follow the guidance that was adopted by full counsel. It wasn't just a tiny little committee. So, if you do go for the reasons that are in that policy, you can't just say, because of the policy, you have to really explain yourself as we consider this reasonable. But as you've said yourself, there is no policy. No, there is no policy, but there is the fact that a policy was adopted, even if it's been quashed so that you can't. Well, it doesn't mean that none of this is a relevant issue on location. It just means you can't say, and the policy says, next question. We should, we should probably move on. Yes. Okay. So, as I said, next door, you've got vulnerable people using services in Trinity house. And on the other side, next door, your own tenants in the citrus building, because you are BCB Council and they are your tenants in long lease holders for the residential commercial tenants for the restaurant. And they are right next door with the only bus stop for that development, which I'm supposed to be encouraging on your policies. Yes, but it is. Right near the strip, the applicant's premises, and you've already heard Adam Fin item about the complaints of harassment of women coming from people coming out of the strip club. So I would say that location is perfectly reasonable to refuse on. If I could take you on a whistle stop tour of what, I mean, I'm sure your officers will advise you on this anyway of what could be appealed on. So, suitability, the, if you refuse on grounds of suitability as I've urged you to do the applicant could have grants for appeal on that. If my application had included on suitability of the premises, which it hasn't, because as I say, I've still had no site of a plan that the regulatory compliant and your officer has sent me, you know, best available as far as I'm aware where. So it doesn't include that, but there would be an appeal if you decide to adjourn until we get a plan so that I can take a view on whether or not that's a suitable building. Location, though, no appeal available. However, if the applicant were to launch or, or I were to launch a judicial review, there are also relevant factors to consider. I should say at this point, because I don't want to be making empty threats at all, especially if there are a few like this being thrown around, not in these proceedings, but at your council. I am certainly not in funds and I don't have any immediate means to obtain funds or any means at all to bring judicial review proceeding. So I'm putting that out there because I don't think it's good style at all personally or for this to say, and I'm going to do a judicial review because that I'm not saying I'm not because who knows what's around the corner, but it's certainly not something that I've got up my sleeve to be threatening. But in any event, though, I will say that risks of judicial review can come up. If you've got any sort of administrative irregularity, and I would suggest, although it doesn't quite fit, fit previous instance of administrative regularity that I'm aware of, that the fact that I haven't had sight of a regulatory compliant. The plan of the building is an administrative irregularity because it doesn't allow you to consider properly, whether this building is suitable. And it doesn't allow me to make any representation. Now the plan, as your officers has rightly said, and is indicating to me quite clearly, is not required under the legislation for licensing this premises for sexual entertainment. However, it is required for a licensing application for alcohol and for the dancing that goes on under the 2003 act. And I suspect, although I don't know for sure that the reason there is no plan required for sexual entertainment venue licensing applications is because you would almost always unless there was such a thing as a no alcohol sexual entertainment venue. I have a plan already filed and available on public records, from which you can make a judgment on whether those premises are suitable. So I say that is an irregularity, and I also say that details of breaches, which you can use as part of your assessment on the suitability of the applicant for running an SUV. Details of those breaches, I say that they should be made available to the public certainly under the openness of local government bodies regulations in 2014. And the fact that those haven't been made available to me as the public means that this hearing can't proceed properly proceed lawfully because that is a gap in what should be done by my administration. But those that should be made available publicly the plan of the premises in all its glory and accordance with the regulations and details of previous breaches because how can you hear public representations or the suitability of the applicant if the public are not able to see details of what breaches have happened previously. Can I just stop this now and ask Sarah Rogers to comment. The plan that you refer to is a public document, and it is attached to the premises license, which is issued under the licensing act, and I have a copy here and it's readily available on request. I've sent you the plans I have the only plans I have, and I've sent them to you a couple of times now. I have no other plan to give you apart from the approved plan that is attached to the license. So you've had that information with regard to the breaches you refer to, there have not been any breaches. We did have breaches a few renewals ago, a couple of years ago, which were identified and dealt with sufficiently by the applicant by way of minor variation to rectify the issues that were raised. And the plan was approved and updated accordingly. There are no current breaches available to disclose to anybody that I am aware of. Thank you, Sarah. Can you now move on to proceed? Can I just be clear that I'm not allowed to counter what's just been said. Have you got details of breaches that you can give us? No, because I haven't yet. I'm not talking about breaches in the last year. These are breaches that have occurred for giving me for interrupting, but it's the last year that we're looking at. This brings me on actually to what needs to be considered as relevant, and I say that what is relevant is not just what happened in the last year, but actually things that happened before the last year are also relevant and that they must be considered. But this is an application, a fresh application that we're considering, and there is no breaches that we're aware of. No, but I beg your pardon, Chair, but last year at the hearing last year, the fact that there had been breaches and the nature of those breaches was something that I as a member of public was not aware of until after the hearing and the decision had been made when I met people from the Office of the Police Commissioner who told me that the police had made objections and that that was at their instigation. And as a result of that, I approached your officers for details of those breaches and I was sent a email trail, an email trail of the conversation about the breaches. And yes, your officer then made a judgment and was able to approve the it was the minor variation that was given prior to the annual licensing. Now, what I take issue with is that when I've asked for details of what those breaches were under the openness of local government regulations, they haven't been made available to me and I say that's an administrative irregularity because I say that relevant factors are not just whether there have been any breaches since the last hearing. But basically anything that is relevant to the suitability that's taken place since the applicant was licensed and and where he's licensed in other areas for other premises. And that's why they're included, but it's entirely a matter for you, Chair, and your. Thank you. We've noted your comments and we'll take one board. Would you like to continue or have you finished? I don't think there really is anything else apart from to to very much encourage you if you have any shred of doubt about your ability to refuse this license. Please, you know, ask me now, don't let me read it in the decision notice that something was considered which I haven't addressed you on. Okay, thank you. Members, do you have questions for Mrs. Stockwell. I do mind this time. Okay. No, I don't have anything at the moment. And I've interrupted you sufficiently to thank you. And to have questions for Mrs. Stockwell. Is this where we ask questions? Is it where we add on to our statements? No, you can ask questions. Really just about the pattern of objections. It seems more of a personal crusade as a single individual. Of course, the public are entitled to raise objections. So you seem to have a very well vested interest against us at way more Southampton and born with to use the public resources. Do you feel it's a necessary expenditure of these resources to bring us to committee every single year, not just as for your eyes only club temptation. Simply pleasure.com anybody with any sexual entertainment venue license sex shop license anything. Do you feel it's a necessary expenditure of these resources. Yes, I have considered that very carefully and I do consider it an appropriate, appropriate spending of resources. And I would just caution that that's not a relevant factor. So watch out that you do. Everybody's just about to jump in. Yes. Thank you. As far as being a personal crusade, I think I've already demonstrated that this is nothing personal against the applicants. This is something where I am concerned that the licensing policies and practices locally haven't really been in the interest of born with child centre and my use of it. Do you have any more questions or of course you need to be careful the what you ask. On that basis, probably not. I understand. Thank you. Right. So moving on. The applicant, would you like to now make your representations. Yes, of course you've got my written response enclosed and I believe it covers most of seasons objections detailed. The only thing that I didn't cover was the additional response, which I saw online. So I just wanted to cover those just for completeness. The venue closer in ultra engine. That's how it's pronounced. I see no relevance to that. It's a venue located 243 miles away. So what relevance that has to our renewal application. I really question. On the website mentioning performance safety. We do indeed have a page on our website dedicated to performance safety. We take pride in the steps that we take above and beyond our licensing requirements to keep our performance safe, which is something any workplace should strive for. It's not an admission of guilt and your workplace should strive to have a safe. Hold some work environment for their staff members. On pricing policy, the objection mentioned tipping and no sizes of alcohol bottles. I'm not aware of any provision in the licensing act that says a customer is unable to tip a member of bar staff or a dancer. And on the sizes of alcoholic bottles, they are included on the menu page of our website on all menus at the premises. And of course we have the weights and measures act notices displayed inside of the premises. On workplace checks condition 60 of our license dates that we must keep written details of dancers. Within this we include the right to work check as we conduct this on all persons engaged at our premises. We are engaging legal workers faces a five year prison sentence and a £60,000 fine person. So we are very well motivated to avoid doing that already. I don't think it's underneath to be included in the license as it's already regulated by the home office. And finally on Susan's comments at the end of it on the cab rank rule. I see no reason why the objector should have a say in our businesses operations. It frankly is not a licensing matter and has nothing to do with the full licensing objectives. If it is something our objective feel so strongly about then I would suggest she opens her own SUV premises. And keep their consultative services to herself. Members do you have questions of the evidence. No, not at all not. So this time I would just know that the four licensing objectives I believe are on the 2003 premises licensing rather than a TV licensing. Yes, that's for support clarity. Thank you. I'll spot it. Mrs Stockwell, do you have any questions of the applicant. Sorry chair. It's not exactly a question but just really to state that altering them and this local authority are under the same law. So it's relevant there. The prices on the website I did I have a lot looked several times and I can't personally find them but that may be a fault on my part. I can't see any prices on the website for the private dances. So again, I'm not sure that really that's clear pricing policy. As far as illegal workers go my understanding which I haven't got chapter and verse of the law at my fingertips so it may be that the applicant is correct is that the finding for illegal workers is for employees. So somebody working there not as an employee but as a self employed person would not generate that sort of offense being committed and that's why I've suggested it as part of the license. The company's house documentation filed for well hot and I'm not quite sure how many. Premises that covers it may be just the wiggle one in Bulmouth for all I know I really can't remember where whereas which one's licensed states nine employees. So I would suggest that that leaves a balance of other people working on the premises that is there a question in. Oh yes. Do you have more than nine people working at. At Wiggleborn. Who might not be employees but self employed as is the usual pattern in your industry. It's approximately nine or so people of course the company says documents is only updated annually. So some do come some do you go. Thank you. That's that's all the question. So do you have any question. No I don't thank you. That brings us to summing up and if you wouldn't mind summing up as the applicant please. Not really an awful lot more to say really we really discussed this in detail over a number of years now and I'm sure that we will continue to do so for another few years. Of course the committee if you do have any questions for us we're more than welcome to answer them on the notes of right to work checks I do have those all securely stored on the data based on my laptop so if there were any questions. Any queries I'm more than happy to provide that to you in a statement or any documents or 20 licensing officers upon their request. Thank you. Thank you. I think really all I want to say by summing up is some think of all month think of what the effect of having three strip clubs in close proximity to each other is having on the center of all month in contrast to the outlying areas which are thriving. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. We'll now conclude the hearing subcommittee will deliberate and private with our legal advisor and present and where possible the notification and subcommittee's decision. We give them within a period of five working days, beginning with the day or the last day of which the hearing was has notification decision will include information about the right of appeal as appropriate. Our school parties to confirm their agreement. And please meeting. Thank you. When you reiterate there will be a right to appeal to any decision that is made by the subcommittee today that the details of that will be in the decision letter, which your guess is applicant your guess is object and needs to be made to the doctor magistrates court. And within 21 days of receiving the written. So we will endeavour to get the decision to you within five working days. There isn't a statutory timeframe for it as there is in the licensing act. But that certainly will be our aim. Okay. If you're happy. Yes, thank you. That does conclude the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.