Agenda item

6.1

The Chief Licensing Officer submitted a report to consider an application made under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 to vary a Premises Licence in respect of the premises known as OMG, 53-59 West Street, Sheffield, S1 4EQ.

6.2

Present at the meeting were Andy Grimsey (Poppleston Allen, Solicitors, for the Applicants), Mathew Causon (Applicant), Councillor Rob Murphy and Sona Mehra (Objectors), Neal Pates (Environmental Protection Service), Andy Ruston (Licensing Enforcement and Technical Officer), Marie-Claire Frankie (Solicitor to the Sub-Committee) and John Turner (Democratic Services).

6.3

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

6.4

Andy Ruston presented the report to the Sub-Committee and it was noted that representations had been received from two local residents and a local Councillor, and were attached at Appendix “C” to the report.  It was further noted that representations from a local resident and the Environmental Protection Service had been withdrawn following discussions with the applicants and the agreement of conditions with the applicants, respectively.  Neal Pates attended the hearing to respond to any questions raised.

6.5

Councillor Rob Murphy, making representations on behalf of four constituents, stated that he was objecting to the application on the grounds of public nuisance and, despite the withdrawal of the representations by the Environmental Protection Service, he requested that the Sub-Committee gave serious consideration to the issues being faced by residents living in this area of the City Centre, regarding noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, particularly as the opening hours of venues was being extended further into the night/early morning, leaving them with a very small window of uninterrupted sleep.  Councillor Murphy stressed that he had no objections to the venue opening, but had concerns regarding the impact of the venue opening until 04:30 hours Friday and Saturday, and 03:30 hours Wednesday and Thursday, on residents living nearby.  He pointed out that it was not simply a case of noise nuisance whilst the venue was open, but local residents had to put up with noise associated with people leaving the venue, as well as by taxis arriving to pick customers up.

6.6

SonaMehra reiterated the concerns raised by Councillor Murphy, stating that whilst she accepted that her family would have to put up with a certain level of disturbance living in the City Centre, her main concern was the fact that once one venue applied to extend its opening hours, others were likely to follow, resulting in local residents living nearby such venues getting very little sleep.  Ms Mehra stated that, at the present time, things had generally quietened down by 04:30 hours, which enabled her and her family to get some sleep before Supertram and the cleaning services started between 06:00 and 06:30 hours.  If this venue was to open until 04:30 hours, by the time everyone had moved out of the area, it would be nearly 05:30 hours, thereby reducing the quiet time to allow for sleep.  Ms Mehra also made reference to the fact that the viewing balcony of the premises was straight in the line of vision with her apartment, resulting in people being able to see into her apartment.  This meant that she had to have her curtains closed nearly all night. 

6.7

In response to questions from Members of the Sub-Committee and the applicant’s representative, Ms Mehra stated that when she moved into her apartment some years ago, the majority of venues closed at 24:00 hours and she had been informed that any changes to these times would be undertaken in consultation with residents living nearby.  If she had known that opening hours were as they are now, she would not have moved there.  Ms Mehra stated that she had two children, and her daughter was doing her GCSEs in 2016, and was concerned that her inability to have a decent night’s sleep would have an adverse effect on her ability to study and revise for her exams.  She had contacted the Environmental Protection Service on a number of occasions to report problems of noise breakout from venues in the area, only to be informed of the difficulties the Service faced in attempting to undertake noise level testing when the venue was open.  The Service was not responsible for, and would not investigate, any issues of noise nuisance caused by customers leaving the venues.  Ms Mehra stated that on Friday and Saturday nights, her family regularly had to put up with shouting and often witnessed people vomiting and/or urinating on the street below their apartment.  Although the apartment was double-glazed, they were often unable to open their windows in summer due to the noise levels from outside.  She also made reference to the fact that the venue’s VIP gallery was situated in line with one of their bedrooms, resulting in the family having to keep the curtains closed most of the time, and them being unable to use their own balcony.  Councillor Murphy supported Ms Mehra’s views, by stating that whilst he accepted that people lived in the City Centre by choice, when the vast majority of people moved some years ago, when the first apartment blocks were constructed, all the venues were closed by 02:00 hours.

6.8

In response to questions from Members of the Sub-Committee, Neal Pates stated that the Council received frequent complaints of noise nuisance regarding licensed premises on West Street, and whilst some were made directly to the Environmental Protection Service, they were mainly received through the ‘101’ non-emergency number.  It was very difficult to target the noise nuisance to one particular premise, particularly in the area around the bottom of West Street, where there were a number of licensed premises.  The Service was able to respond to complaints of noise breakout related to licensed premises more effectively, as opposed to complaints where noise was being generated by people leaving venues, and walking through town.  However, although officers visited premises, following complaints, it was very difficult for them to carry out noise level testing when there was a large number of people around, with several of them being drunk.  A large number of cases, where the Service had undertaken noise level testing in terms of noise breakout relating to licensed premises, had resulted in conditions being placed on venues’ Premises Licences.  Mr Pates stated that problems regarding anti-social behaviour outside venues, including glasses being taken outside and broken, was the responsibility of the police or the Health Protection Service.  Whilst conditions imposed on venues were effective in monitoring/limiting noise levels, the only way to stop problems of noise nuisance outside venues would be to reduce opening hours. 

6.9

Andy Grimsey put forward the case on behalf of the applicants, indicating that whilst he understood the concerns of local residents in terms of the extension of opening hours, there were sufficient safeguards in place, and a number of ways of dealing with problems linked to licensed premises.  He stated that Mathew Causon had met with representatives from all the relevant authorities in August 2015, to discuss the proposals, and the outcome of such discussions had assisted him in drafting the application for the variation of the Premises Licence.  Mr Grimsey highlighted the fact that, following the submission of the application, there had been no outstanding objections from any of the responsible authorities and, following discussions with one of the local residents who had objected to the application, the resident had subsequently withdrawn her objections.  Mr Causon stated that his company managed a number of gay clubs across the country, but mainly concentrated in the south, and that the venues were well known for attracting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) people from a large catchment area.  The plan was to create a community venue, and would be targeting a specific clientele.  Extensive noise attenuation measures had already been undertaken at the premises, with acoustic foam being installed on the facade fronting on to West Street. 

6.10

In response to questions from Members of, and the Solicitor to, the Sub-Committee, and the objectors, Mr Causon stated that the gay club scene was seen as a very safe environment, and he wouldn’t wish to compromise this by admitting anyone he considered would adversely affect the atmosphere at the venue.  In addition to this, there were no plans to televise any sporting events or hold any activities of a similar nature.  Whilst there were plans to consult with the LGBT community in Sheffield, due to the amount of work required at the premises, Mr Causon had only been in contact with the two Universities.  If large groups of people tried to gain entry to the venue late on, they would not be let in.  In terms of consultation with local residents and local community groups, Mr Causon stated that he had spoken to a woman who represented one community group, and had emailed a number of other local residents in connection with the application.

6.11

Andy Grimsey summarised the case on behalf of the applicants.

6.12

Andy Ruston reported on the options open to the Sub-Committee.

6.13

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.

6.14

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

6.15

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

6.16

RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee agrees to grant a variation to the Premises Licence in respect of OMG, 53-59 West Street, Sheffield, S1 4EQ, in the terms requested, and in accordance with the amended operating schedule.

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