, 19 September 2024 - 3 October 2024

Cllr Lucy Helliwell

Cllr Kerry Pickett

Cllr Ivan Lyons

Liz Woodley

Emily Fountain

Thomas Bald

Nick Huxley (resident)

Ben Hutton (Hove Fitness Club)

Sarah Booker Lewis / James Tourle

RE:    Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions) - Notification of the Determination of Panel.

Licensing Panel hearing held on Tuesday 9 July virtually in respect of the application for a premises licence for Pipeline 6 Little East Street, Brighton BN1 1HT

The panel has read all the papers including the report and relevant representations and listened to the submissions put forward at the hearing.  The panel has also had regard to the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SOLP) and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 statutory guidance.

The application is for a variation of an existing premises licence. It seeks to amend the first- floor plan to show the stage as a permanent fixture and to remove conditions related to the provision of food.

The premises are situated within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). This is an area of the city centre which is causing problems of crime and disorder and public nuisance.  The special policy will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The effect of this special policy is that applications for variations of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing Cumulative Impact will be refused following relevant representations. This presumption can be rebutted by the applicant if they can show that their application will have no negative Cumulative Impact.

A “matrix” approach to licensing decisions has been adopted by the council in its SOLP. It sets out a framework of what the licensing authority would like to see within its area and gives an indication of the likelihood of success to any applicant. The matrix indicates that within the Cumulative Impact Area, applications for pubs are likely to be refused, restaurants are acceptable until midnight, and Non-alcohol lead venues will receive favourable consideration. 

Two representations were received from Responsible Authorities – the Police and the Licensing Authority. They raised concerns relating to Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Cumulative Impact, Public Safety, and Prevention of Public Nuisance.

We heard from the Police representative that:-

i)                the premises originally had the benefit of a restaurant licence. By 2015, the premises were trading as Northern Lights, but in that year following concerns a review of the licence was initiated.  As a result, new conditions were added to the licence (see pages 41 to 43 of the agenda.) Experience has shown that the licence was confusing and a refresh was long overdue.

ii)              Pipeline Entertainments Limited took over the premises in 2017. Mr Evrenos is the sole director of the company. Since that time the premises has largely operated as a music venue.

iii)            In February 2024 numerous breaches of the licence conditions were identified. To his credit, Mr Evrenos has consulted the Police and the Licensing Authority to try to negotiate appropriate licence conditions to suit his desired style of operation.

iv)            The Police are concerned that the removal of conditions relating to the provision of food will change the nature of the premises. That said, the Police are supportive of grass roots music venues and agreement has largely been reached over conditions which are reproduced on pages 54-64 of the agenda.

v)             The sticking point is the hours of operation, especially the hours for the supply of alcohol after live music performances.

vi)            There was no objection to the amendment to the Licence Plan, to show the stage.

We were told that there has been minimal Police interaction with the premises for 7 years, although East Street is notorious.

The Licensing Authority representative expanded upon her objection, and advised that breaches of the licence had been identified pre-Covid, but had not been followed up.

In his presentation, and in answer to questions we were told by Mr Evrenos that:

• He had taken over problematic premises, and had had regard to the 2015 Review Panel’s decision. He had tried to promote the licensing objectives, and avoid complaints. He was on good terms with neighbours.
• There is a demand for live music. Pipeline is about musicians playing music. There is no dancing, and no DJs.
• Whilst he is usually at the premises 4 or 5 days a week, he was not present at the February 2024 visit. Unfortunately none of the 5 staff present on that occasion knew where paperwork was kept. He was working to ensure that similar issues would not recur.
• The provision of food in accordance with the existing licence is a struggle.
• He had paid for 2 door supervisors for 7 years to do nothing.
• Headline acts traditionally play a 22.00 to 23.00 hours slot. If alcohol sales were to cease at 23.00 hours as requested by the Police, the musicians could not unwind with a drink afterwards.
• Going forward, safety will be a priority. To date, there had been no spiking problems, no fights and no ambulance calls.

The panel has considered this application on its merits.  It welcomes the applicant’s active engagement with the Police and Licensing Authority, and the agreed conditions. We are concerned about the number of breaches of the licence identified in February 2024, but  we cannot ignore the fact that for the last 7 years, the premises has operated safely as a grass roots music venue without attracting action from any of the Responsible Authorities.  It is likely in our view that the presence of 2 Door Supervisors at weekends has operated as a deterrent. We therefore propose to continue the requirement for 2 door supervisors after 22.00 until close on Friday and Saturday nights. To date, staff training appears to have been ad hoc. We therefore are imposing a condition requiring all new staff within 7 days of commencing employment to be trained in the use of the CCTV system, the refusals book and incident log, and to be instructed where the contract for mobile support arrangements and risk assessment are stored. All such training must be fully documented.  We do not believe that allowing the premises to continue operating  as a grass roots music venue with its existing hours will have any negative Cumulative Impact. The agreed conditions make it clear that this is not an alcohol led venue, and as such is compatible with our Matrix.  The amendment of the Licence Plan simply reinforces the premises’ classification as a grass roots music venue.

The application is therefore granted with the conditions agreed with the Police and the following restrictions/ conditions:-

Conditions agreed with the Police as set out on pages 54 to 64 of the agenda, save that the Condition 9 should now read,

“The premises will employ two (2) SIA registered door supervisors from 22.00 hours until close on Friday and Saturday night.”

Condition 2 is omitted.

(By way of explanation, it is included as Condition 28)

And new condition:-

The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that within 7 days of commencing employment,  all staff members shall receive training in the use of the CCTV system, the refusals book and incident log, and be instructed where key documents are stored at the premises. All such training must be fully documented and recorded.

The Panel believes that the above conditions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The minutes of the panel will be available on the Council’s website under the rubric ‘Council and Democracy’. A webcast of the meeting is also available.

Appeal Rights

(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003)

The applicant may appeal against the decision to impose conditions on the licence. 

Any person who made a relevant representation who desires to contend that the licence ought not to have been granted, or that on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions, may appeal against the decision.

All appeals must be made to Magistrates’ Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of notification of this decision letter. A fee is payable upon lodging an appeal.

RE:    Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing Panel Hearing Notification of the Determination of Panel.

Licensing panel hearing held in person on Friday 10^th May 2024 in respect of the review of a premises licence in respect of premises known as Paris House, 21 Western Road, Hove BN3 1AE.

The panel has considered this application for review, relevant representations, submissions and statements, noise diaries and other additional information, including videos. The panel has listened carefully to all submissions made at the hearing. The panel has had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy.

The review is brought by 4 local residents based on the prevention of public nuisance, and prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives. Two representations were received from the Licensing Authority & Environmental Protection Team outlining their history with the premises. Nine representations were received in support of the review, one representation was neutral and one hundred and thirty representations were received opposing the review. A large number of emails were received with the same wording which was treated as a petition in support of the premises consisting of 1646 emails.

The main grounds for the review are noise disturbance caused by live and recorded music played within the premises and noise caused by customers both inside and outside the premises before and after 23:00 hours. Anti-social behaviour is also complained of  from customers of the premises. The review called for action to be taken to address these issues either revocation or imposition of better and more effective conditions to protect residents. A noise report was also submitted by the applicants which proposed stricter conditions.

The panel heard submissions and arguments from all parties over the course of almost eight hours. Questions were asked of all the parties.

In presenting their case the applicants highlighted the following:

• The most relevant issue was the noise disturbance for some since 2019. All avenues including mediation had been exhausted. Applicants were disturbed in their homes by the noise and found it hard to sleep. In one case their health was adversely affected. The noise was definitely coming from the Paris House. Representations supported this.
• The attitude of the licence holders was considered at times intimidatory and unhelpful. There was denial of any problem.
• Officers were not able to witness noise nuisance as not able to come out when noise complained of. Recording equipment was installed but not in correct place so could not be used.
• The noise report stated level of music especially at night was an issue and the noise limiter not effective and bypassed.
• Conditions would permit premises to continue without causing a nuisance.
• The noise has been less since the end of March due to the review application submitted.
• Need and cultural arguments are not relevant and cannot override the licensing  objectives.

The above is only a brief summary and a large amount of written evidence was submitted with the application and subsequently which has been considered by the panel.

The two officers for the responsible authorities of licensing and environmental protection made their representations to the panel. They stressed that a statutory noise nuisance was not witnessed and that there was no clear evidence of a breach of conditions or undermining of the licensing objectives. That did not necessarily mean there was no issue. They had made over 20 visits and the premises were not warned in advance. Updated conditions could assist in resolving the issues.

In presenting their case, the solicitor for the licence holders and licence holders highlighted the following:

• They do not cause a public nuisance. Officers' visits had established this. Account had to be taken of the area which was noisy. The evidence including that of the noise expert was not determinative and not consistent. People living closer were not disturbed.
• There was no crime or disorder associated with the premises. The police had made no representation.
• They wished to maintain the status quo. Any further conditions would make the business unviable.
• They were professional and established operators who had turned premises around.
• The premises were an important cultural asset to the community. The overwhelming level of support received in response to the review testifies to this.
• The DJ conducted regular noise patrols, took noise readings and was not exceeding the levels set by the noise limiter which was in use all the time. Doors and windows were closed during live and recorded music. Live music did not take place after 22:00 hours.
• The outside seating area including the fold down benches at the side was closed before 23:00 hours and seating disabled. People were permitted to take drinks outside on the pavement after 23:00hours and should be allowed to continue to do so to prevent spiking. No evidence that causing an issue and they were monitored.

Again the panel recognises this is a brief summary and has considered the witness statements and other documentation provided in support of the premises.

The panel must take such statutory steps under the Licensing Act in response to the review as are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. The panel has considered our Statement of Licensing Policy and enforcement approach and the S182 Statutory Guidance in relation to reviews. The panel must establish if the licensing objectives have been undermined. It must therefore assess if there has been public nuisance and/or crime and disorder associated with these premises. The panel appreciates that there are strong feelings on both sides and the volume of documentation submitted for this review is unprecedented.

In terms of crime and disorder, the panel does not believe that there is any crime or disorder associated with the premises and notes there is no representation from the police in support of the review.

On balance the panel does not consider that public nuisance is associated with these premises. Overall, taking into account all the evidence submitted, the panel does not consider that what is complained of amounts to a public nuisance in the licensing sense in this location in terms of  degree, consistency or severity. In reaching this conclusion the panel gives weight to the following factors. The area itself is a busy, vibrant city centre location with many other licensed and retail premises and thus a level of noise is inevitable. The evidence of noise disturbance is not sufficiently widespread or consistent to amount to a public nuisance in our view; there are many representations from residents who live closer to the premises than the applicants who are not disturbed by noise from the premises including those who live immediately next door. The representations from the environmental protection officer and licensing officer do not corroborate the applicants' complaints or establish the existence of a noise nuisance or breach of any conditions despite over 20 visits to the premises. The noise expert report is not conclusive as to public nuisance in the panel’s view and we noted he faced some difficult questions from the licence holders as to the detail of the report which raised doubts about some of the content including the ‘heart of glass incident’. Furthermore, we do not consider the report can be considered independent as it was commissioned by the applicants. The panel heard from the established DJ to the premises who was clear he made regular noise checks and patrols and that the noise limiter was in constant use. The doors and windows were closed during performances of live and recorded music. It was stressed that no significant changes had been made to the premises entertainment during the past month when it was noted by the applicants that things have been quieter.

In view of its findings the steps the panel may take to promote the licensing objectives are limited. However, the current licence is old and some of the conditions are not as clear and precise as they could be. In particular that relating to the sound limiter is very basic. Given the assurances by the DJ and licence holders that the sound limiter was in effective operation during DJ sets and recorded music, we consider it is appropriate therefore to replace it with the following condition which was discussed with the premises when they met the licensing officers and was acceptable to them:

The installed Sound Limiter Device shall be set and approved by an Environmental Protection Officer from Brighton and Hove City Council. Once set, the limiter shall be locked and tamper free. Access to this device will be made available and adjustments made should noise complaints be received. All recorded music and DJ sets shall be plugged into this Sound Limiter Device to limit the music level.

As an advisory rider the panel wish it to be stressed that the condition currently on the licence that the outside area shall be closed and cleared by 23.00 hours relates to the external seating areas now covered by the current pavement licence and should also include the two benches at the side of the premises which are within the demise of the premises. The licence holders should continue their regular checks inside and outside the premises to ensure that both people and entertainment noise is not constituting a nuisance as is required under the licence.

Please note:  This determination does not take effect until the end of the period given below for appealing against the decision or, if the decision is appealed against, the time the appeal is disposed of.

The minutes of the panel will be available on the Council’s website under the heading ‘Council and Democracy’.

Appeal Rights

(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003)

1.              The licence holder may appeal against the decision made.

2.              The applicant for review may appeal against the decision made.

3.              Any person who made a relevant representation in relation to the application may appeal against the decision made.

All appeals must be made to Magistrate’s Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of deemed delivery of this letter. Delivery will be deemed to have been effected on the second working day after posting.

Yours faithfully

1)            Cabinet agrees to the procurement and award of a contract/s for a period of three years with options to extend for a further two years for the provision of cleaning services for vulnerable residents and grants delegated authority to the Corporate Director Housing Care & Wellbeing to procure and award the contract/s.

2)            Cabinet grants delegated authority to the Corporate Director Housing Care & Wellbeing to agree the optional extension of the contract/s referred to in 2.1 subject to satisfactory performance.

This report sets our proposals for the recommissioning of a supported accommodation framework for young people who are either children in care or leaving care.

1)             Cabinet agrees to the:

(i)      procurement of an APL and the award of an Agreement to successful applicants to be admitted onto the Approved Provider List for the provision of supported accommodation for young people placements in the independent sector for an initial term of four (4) years commencing on 1 July 2025 with an option to extend for a period or periods of up to two (2) years; and 

(ii)    call off contracts and individual placement agreements under the APL Agreement outlined at 2.1(i) above,for an estimated value of up to £25.36m. 

2)             Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Families, Children & Learning to take all necessary steps to procure, award, implement and extend arrangements set out in recommendation 2.1.

3)             Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Families, Children & Learning to integrate the outcomes of the Equalities Impact Assessment into the arrangements set out in recommendation 2.1.

This report presents the General Fund resource and cost estimates for 2025-26 and the 4-year MTFS period for noting. The report also seeks approval of the approach for setting the annual revenue and capital budget for 2025-26.

That Cabinet:

1)            Note the planning assumption of a Council Tax increase of 2.99% over the 4-year Medium-Term Financial Plan period and an Adult Social Care Precept of 2.00% or the equivalent in grant funding in 2025/26.

2)            Note the funding assumptions and net expenditure projections for 2025/26 including a projected budget shortfall of £36.730 million.

3)            Note the Medium Term financial projections for 2025/26 to 2028/29 and the predicted budget gaps totalling over £105 million over the period.

4)            Note the proposed budget development approach and that members will use this to develop 4-year medium-term service and financial plans and proposals for Budget Council consideration, including detailed budget proposals to set a legally balanced budget in 2025/26 and enable the Council Tax for the year to be set.

5)            Note the planning assumption of recurrently funding transformation enabling resources of at least £1 million, as set out in paragraphs 7.5 to 7.6, from the revenue budget rather than the previous practice of utilising capital receipts since 2016/17.

6)            Note that projections for next year and the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) will be updated following government funding announcements expected in Autumn 2024 and Spring 2025.

1)            Note the Regulator of Social Housing Regulatory Judgement, following responsive engagement with the Council, that there are serious failings in how the Council is delivering on the standard of Safety and Quality, and that significant improvement is needed.

2)            Note the update on progress on actions being undertaken toward Safety & Quality compliance to address the Regulator’s concerns, meet our statutory and regulatory obligations, and improve housing services for our residents. 

3)            Agrees Overview & Scrutiny oversight arrangements as set out in section 6 of this report. 

1)             That Cabinet recommends the draft Housing Strategy 2024 to 2029 set out at Appendix 1 to go to Full Council for approval.

2)             That Cabinet agrees the Year 1 Action Plan set out at Appendix 2.

3)             That Cabinet receives a report on the delivery of the Housing Strategy 2024 to 2029 on an annual basis.

This report sets out and seeks approval for a way forward following the review of parking undertaken by an external consultant.

1)             Cabinet agrees to taking forward the new Parking Policy aims and objectives as detailed in paragraph 3.9 below and in Appendix 1.

2)             Cabinet agrees to the Parking Services 24/25 Action Plan as summarised in Table 1 to ensure actions are included as part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. This aims to reduce the current under-achievement of the £45.5m parking income budget this financial year.

3)             Cabinet agrees the medium to long term action plan and financial appraisal to deliver the new Parking Policy contained in Appendix 3.

1)             Cabinet delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Housing, Care and Wellbeing to participate in a procurement process, conducted by the NHS Sussex ICB for community mental health support services for adults.

2)             Cabinet agrees to the award of a contract via the procurement process set out in 2.1 and delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Housing, Care and Wellbeing to enter into the contract with the successful bidder for the provision of community mental health support services for adults.  The length of the contract to be five years from 1 October 2025 with the option to extend by a further two years on the basis of satisfactory performance by the service provider.

1)             Cabinet approves the direct award of the PHCN contract to Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust for a period of up to five years (3+2yrs) 

2)             Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Housing Care & Wellbeing to finalise the terms for the contract and award the contract for PHCN for a term of five years.  

RESOLVED –

That the Audit, Standards, and General Purposes Committee:

1)       Note the contents of this report, including the data provided on member complaints at Appendix 1.

2)       Approve the proposed changes to the initial tests against which member complaints are assessed as set out in Appendix 2 and give the Monitoring Officer delegated authority to update the Council’s Constitution to incorporate those changes, including by making any changes considered necessary or incidental to give effect to the proposal.

RESOLVED –

That the Audit, Standards, and General Purposes Committee note the report.

RESOLVED –

That the Audit, Standards, and General Purposes Committee note the findings set out in the 2023/24 Audit Findings Report and ask questions of the auditor as necessary and raise any other matters relevant to the audit of the 2023/24 financial statements.

RESOLVED –

That the Audit, Standards, and General Purposes Committee:

1)       Notes the findings of the external auditor Grant Thornton as set out in their audit findings report.

2)       Notes the results of the public inspection of the accounts.

3)       Approves the Letter of Representation on behalf of the council.

4)       Approves the audited Statement of Accounts for 2023/24 subject to any final amendments.

5)       Delegates authority to the Chief Finance Officer for any final wording or immaterial adjustments to the accounts prior to publication

RESOLVED –

That the Audit, Standards, and General Purposes Committee:

1)       Agrees the new Anti Bullying Harassment and Victimisation Policy and Procedure to replace the existing Dignity at Work Policy and Guidance.

2)       Delegates authority to the acting Corporate Director – Corporate Services to take any action necessary to implement this on or after the 1st October 2024.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Finance and City Regeneration.

DECISION -

That the Cabinet Member for Finance and City Regeneration:

1.      Agreed that following the outcome of the consultation held between 8 July – 5 September 2024 the decision is taken to continue the closure process and publish a statutory notice.

2.      Noted that publication of the statutory notice will trigger a four-week representation period which will run from 7 October 2024 to 4 November 2024 during which period any interested parties can comment on the proposal.

3.      Noted that following the representation period a further report will come back to a meeting of the Cabinet on 14 November 2024 to consider the responses and to make a final decision on closure.

4.      Noted that before any final decision on closure can be taken it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to have exercised her discretion to revoke the Academy Order which the school is currently subject to.