The Licensing and Gambling Sub-Committee convened to discuss an application for a premises licence for 8 Fulton Street, Liverpool. The application was submitted by Mersey View Leisure Ltd. Due to concerns raised by the Head of Building Control regarding the safety of the building, the sub-committee ultimately voted to refuse the application.

Premises Licence Application for 8 Fulton Street

Mersey View Leisure Ltd applied for a premises licence for 8 Fulton Street, Liverpool, a former warehouse, seeking permission for a range of activities including plays, films, indoor sporting events, boxing or wrestling, live and recorded music, performance of dance, and the supply of alcohol, with opening hours from 9am to midnight, Monday to Sunday.

During the consultation period, Merseyside Police agreed to a number of conditions, including requirements for event management plans, door staff, CCTV, incident books, and drug policies.

However, the application received objections from the Planning Authority and Building Control, leading to a thorough discussion of the application's merits and potential impacts.

Ultimately, the sub-committee voted to refuse the application, with two members in favour of refusal and one against. The primary reason for the refusal was the absence of a Building Regulations Certificate and the Head of Building Control's concerns about the building's safety for public use.

Objections from the Planning Authority

The Planning Authority representative, Aimee Staunton, raised concerns that the premises did not have planning consent for its proposed use as an event venue, potentially hosting several hundred people at a time. She noted that a planning application had been submitted but was currently invalid, and the site was subject to an active planning enforcement investigation.

Aimee Staunton highlighted the potential for public nuisance due to noise and the comings and goings of large numbers of patrons, particularly late at night. She also noted that the applicant holds a licence for the adjoining premises at 35 Regent Road, a former timber yard, which also lacks planning consent for use as licensed premises, and that operating the two sites in conjunction could further exacerbate the potential for nuisance.

Aimee Staunton suggested that if the licence were to be granted, operating hours should be restricted to conform with similar uses in the surrounding area, with a closing time of midnight.

Objections from Building Control

The Building Control representative, Philip Smith, raised concerns about the conversion of the building without building regulations permission, the quality of the application, and compliance with structural and fire safety regulations. He emphasised the applicant's obligation to obtain a completion certificate to demonstrate compliance.

Philip Smith also raised concerns about crowd flow and the potential interaction between the premises and the nearby Hill Dickinson Stadium's safety certificate, particularly regarding safe egress from the stadium. He stated that without a formal building regulation application and known numbers of people, the site could potentially hold 1000 to 1500 people, impacting crowd flow modelling and potentially causing congestion and harm.

Philip Smith suggested that the licence application be refused until a formal Building Regulation application is submitted and fully approved.

Applicant's Response

The applicant's representative addressed the sub-committee, arguing that the representations from the Planning Authority and Building Control were not directly related to the Licensing Act. They noted that the applicant had reduced the hours sought in response to the Planning Authority's concerns and that a building regulations application had been submitted.

The applicant's representative stated that a Temporary Event Notice¹ (TEN) had been used to operate the premises over the weekend, with regular inspections and no reported issues. They also stated that a Safety Advisory Group meeting had taken place before the TEN was used, and that the premises would provide Event Management Plans.

The applicant's representative stated that the capacity of the premises is controlled by a clicker, and that signage would be displayed requesting customers to leave quietly, with reminders given by security staff as part of the Event Management Plan.

The applicant's representative stated that the TEN did not proceed until a structural engineer confirmed the building's safety, demonstrating due diligence, and that the TEN was operated without any issues.

Committee's Deliberation

Despite the applicant's arguments, the sub-committee remained concerned about the lack of a Building Regulations Certificate and the Head of Building Control's concerns about the building's safety.

The sub-committee acknowledged that planning and licensing are different pieces of legislation, but recognised the crossover between them with regards to public nuisance.

Ultimately, the sub-committee resolved that, due to the absence of a Building Regulations Certificate and the Head of Building Control's concerns about the building's safety, the application should be refused.