The Sub-Committee considered the application
to vary a premises licence in respect of Unit, 113 St Mary’s
Street, Southampton, SO14 OAN. (Copy of the report circulated with
the agenda and appended to signed minutes).
Mr Kirk (Counsel for Unit), Mr Rathore (Solicitor), Mr Lovell, Owner, Mr
Downton, Designated Premises
Supervisor, PC Harris, PC Wood and Miss Jerran, Hampshire Constabulary and Mr Pitt,
Resident (Objector) were present and with the consent of the Chair,
addressed the meeting.
The Sub-Committee considered the decision in
confidential session in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003
(Hearings) Regulations 2005.
Legal advice was accepted by the Sub-Committee
in relation to the Cumulative Impact Policy. It was noted that the
premises is located within the boundary of a previously identified
stress area, and was subject to the provisions of the formally
adopted Cumulative Impact Policy “CIP” ( adopted 13 May
2009, confirmed upon review 17 November 2010) that applied to that area.
The Committee noted in particular that:-
- one
effect of the CIP was that a rebuttable presumption
applied to applications for substantial variations to existing
premises, and that whether a variation was substantial for the
purposes of this policy was a matter that the Licensing Authority
had to determine in any instance of doubt.
- The rebuttable
presumption was that such applications should be refused.
- the
standard of proof for the consideration by the Committee of any
matter relating to cumulative impact should be on the balance of
probabilities.
- Licensing Policy CIP2 16.9 provides
that the onus was upon applicants to demonstrate through their
Operating Schedule and where appropriate supporting evidence, that
the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative
impact already being experienced
RESOLVED
that the application for the variation of this premises licence, be
refused in its entirety.
REASONS
The Sub-Committee considered very carefully
the application to vary the premises licence at Unit and gave due
regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives,
statutory guidance, the adopted statement of Licensing Policy,
in particular policies CIP 1- CIP 5,
human rights legislation and the evidence submitted by all parties,
both written and given orally today.
- The Sub-Committee determined that
the variation sought was substantial because it would extend the
licensable activities on the days specified further into the early
hours of the morning.
- Having determined that the variation
sought was substantial the rebuttable presumption that the
application be refused applied and the burden of proof was upon the
applicant to establish on the balance of probabilities that there
would be no cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing
objectives.
- The Sub-Committee accepted the
evidence of the Police concerning incidents connected with the
premises and in the vicinity, although not directly linked to the
premises.
- Further, the Sub-committee accepted
the police statistical analysis concerning the night time economy
and the conclusions drawn as to the likely effect of any increase
in opening hours.
- The Sub-Committee accepted the
evidence of the local residents as to the noise and other nuisance
they have experienced in the early hours, arising from patrons
leaving Unit and also from other persons moving through the area as
part of the night time economy.
The Sub-committee gave significant weight to the evidence of Mr
Pitt in this regard and noted the proximity of the premises to the
neighbouring residential properties.
- The Sub-Committee carefully
considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, and in
particular concerning a suggested reduction in problems of nuisance
that would result from an extension of hours. However, the committee was not satisfied
that this assertion in relation to an increase in Wednesdays and Saturdays was supported by
sufficient evidence, and although there had been a limited number
of TENS during September and October, again the committee found
that these did not provide sufficient weight.
- The Sub-Committee noted that the
applicant had introduced some improvements and positive measures
including sound attenuation and CCTV, new door staff and revised
policies, however, determined that these measures did not resolve
the main issues.
- Weighing up all these findings and
evidence, the Sub-Committee decided that the applicant had not
satisfied the burden of proof imposed upon it and consequently
refused the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sub Committee suggested that the
applicants:-
- join Licensing Link ;
- make and keep contact with local
people through the Residents Association; and
- engage with the local engagement
officer (via the police)