Agenda item

4.1

The Chief Licensing Officer submitted a report to consider an application for a Premises Licence made under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003, in respect of the premises known as Crossfit SCI, Unit 8, Farfield Industrial Estate, 12 Hillfoot Road, Sheffield, S3 8AA.

4.2

Present at the meeting were Sean Gibbons (Health Protection Service, Objector), Benita Mumby (South Yorkshire Police, Objector), Neil Pates (Environmental Protection Service, Objector), Julie Hague (Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board, Objector), Andy Ruston (Licensing Enforcement and Technical Officer), Marie-Claire Frankie (Solicitor to the Sub-Committee) and John Turner (Democratic Services).

4.3

The applicant, who had been invited, did not attend the hearing, and the Sub-Committee agreed to consider the application in her absence.

4.4

Marie-Claire Frankie outlined the procedure which would be followed during the hearing.

4.5

Andy Ruston presented the report to the Sub-Committee, and it was noted that objections had been received from the Health Protection Service, South Yorkshire Police, Environmental Protection Service and the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board, and were attached at Appendices ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, respectively.

4.6

Julie Hague stated that the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board had a number of concerns with regard to the application, relating mainly to the lack of detail, specifically with regard to safeguarding.  There were no details in terms of whether Challenge 21 or 25 would be used in terms of the adult events at the venue and very little detail, if any, relating to what safeguarding steps would be taken in connection with children’s events.  Ms Hague stated that she had notified the applicant of two suggested conditions, relating to safeguarding, but the applicant had failed to respond. 

4.7

Sean Gibbons circulated a number of photographs of the premises and its surroundings.  He indicated that the Health Protection Service had a number of concerns regarding the application, which had been raised with the applicant at a site meeting held on 6^th June 2016.  Some of these concerns included a lack of detail in respect of the plan of the premises, its capacity, the location of any proposed bar area and the general operation of the premises.  He stated that it had been very difficult for the Service to make any assessment of the application as the applicant had been very unresponsive.  He raised further concerns regarding the lack of detail relating to proposed boxing or wrestling events, live music events, late night refreshments and the footfall of customers arriving and leaving the premises on the basis that it was situated on an industrial estate.  Whilst the structure of the premises was generally suitable for the planned events, there were insufficient toilet/washing facilities, and the mezzanine area was not guarded or load bearing.  Mr Gibbons also stated that the Service had experienced problems in contacting the applicant, and with the applicant not responding.

4.8

Benita Mumby stated that the police’s objections related to the lack of detail in the application, and lack of clarity in terms of the different events proposed at the premises.  She stated that there were also concerns in terms of public safety and public nuisance, both relating to the nature of the surrounding area in terms of events held at night, and regarding the safety of young children, again due to the nature of the surrounding area and the heavy traffic.  The police had specific concerns with regard to the proposal to open for 24 hours at weekends, and were concerned that there was a high potential for a drain on their resources linked to the operation of the premises.

4.9

Neil Pates expressed similar views to the other objectors in that he considered the application to be very open, vague and flexible, which had resulted in the Service not being able to provide appropriate advice to the applicant.  The Service was in a position to provide a wide range of advice in terms of sound management but, in the light of the lack of clarity in terms of the applicant’s plans, as well as her failing to respond to correspondence, this had proved very difficult.  He expressed concern at the potential for events to be held at the premises, with no appropriate controls, or any measures to deal with noise breakout, both during the night and during the day. 

4.10

In response to questions from Members of, and the Solicitor to, the Sub-Committee, it was stated that, in terms of contact with the applicant, the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board had received no response at all to their queries, and, although the other services had met with the applicant on 6^th June 2016, she had not got back to them, despite promising to do so following a number of queries and concerns raised at this meeting.  It was believed that the applicant’s father either owned or leased the unit, which was currently being used as a gym, and it was the intention for his daughter, the applicant, to manage the business.  It was confirmed that Arthur’s Skips were based very close to the premises, which, along with other businesses on the industrial estate, could cause problems with regard to health and safety, particularly if young children were attending the venue.

4.11

RESOLVED: That the public and press and attendees involved in the application be excluded from the meeting before further discussion takes place on the grounds that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, if those persons were present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as described in paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.

4.12

Marie-Claire Frankie reported orally, giving legal advice on various aspects of the application.

4.13

At this stage in the proceedings, the meeting was re-opened to the public and press and attendees.

4.14

RESOLVED: That in the light of the information contained in the report now submitted, together with the representations now made, and the responses to the questions raised, the application for the grant of a Premises Licence in respect of Crossfit SCI, Unit 8, Farfield Industrial Estate, 12 Hillfoot Road, Sheffield, S3 8AA, be rejected.

(The full reasons for the Sub-Committee’s decision will be included in the written Notice of Determination.)