The Licensing Sub-Committee met to consider an application for a new premises licence for Sonics Nightclub, Unit 2, 8-9 Harold Place, Hastings. The application was rejected. This was due to a lack of required planning permission, numerous procedural errors by the applicant, and concerns raised by the Council officers and residents about noise, safety, crime and disorder, and the applicant's lack of experience.

The Application

The application was for a ‘Nightclub’ type premises at Unit 2, 8-9 Harold Place, Hastings. This included permission for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late-night refreshment.

The proposed opening hours were:

• Sunday to Wednesday 11.00 to 01.00 hrs
• Thursday to Saturday 11.00 to 02.00 hrs
• Until 02:00 New Years Eve

The applicant, Samantha Higgins, had made a number of procedural errors during the application process, including:

• Failing to properly address the Cumulative Impact Policy, which seeks to limit the number of licensed premises in a defined area.
• Failing to obtain the correct planning permission for a nightclub. The premises was only licensed for use as a restaurant.
• Failing to submit the application correctly, and failing to display the required blue notices advertising the application.
• Failing to address concerns about noise and safety in the application.

Representations

33 valid representations were received from residents, including Licensing, Environmental Health and Planning as responsible authorities.

Common concerns raised in the representations included:

• Noise from the premises, particularly from music and customers leaving late at night.
• Antisocial behaviour and crime and disorder, particularly from customers leaving the premises drunk and disorderly.
• Public safety, particularly from large numbers of people leaving the premises late at night.
• The applicant's lack of experience in running a nightclub.
• The close proximity of the premises to residential properties, including a retirement home.

The Decision

The Sub-Committee considered the application and the representations made, and decided to reject the application.

The reasons for the decision included:

• The applicant had not demonstrated that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the area.
• The applicant had not demonstrated that the premises would be run in a way that would promote the licensing objectives.
• The applicant had not demonstrated that they had the experience or knowledge to run a nightclub.
• The premises was not suitable for a nightclub, due to its close proximity to residential properties.

The Sub-Committee felt that the applicant had a lack of licensing knowledge . The Committee were concerned that key areas of managing the premises and the license remain unaddressed or imprecise , including fire safety, a noise report and plan, security and a drugs policy. The Sub-Committee were also concerned by a lack of public consultation, with the plans only becoming apparent to residents at a late stage.

Councillor Rogers, ward councillor for Castle Ward, addressed the committee and explained that she had met with local residents and all residents spoken to had rejected supporting this application. Concerns were raised regarding the customers outside the nightclub, the noise from the music, and the potential for antisocial behaviour and crime and disorder.

The Senior Environmental Health Officer said they were against the application, raising serious concerns with the fabric of the building and the ability to manage the premises, in respect of the Licensing objectives, especially the Prevention of Public Nuisance . In particular, they were concerned that the applicant had not provided evidence of soundproofing. The Senior Environmental Health Officer requested to include previous breaches of food safety law as evidence of noncompliance. This was rejected by the committee as irrelevant because the allegations were out of time and were not agreed by all parties.

The Senior Licensing Officer also addressed the committee and expressed concern that the applicant consistently shown they do not have the knowledge or experience to run such a high-risk premises .

Residents then addressed the committee, and explained how their whole house vibrated when the application site was doing sound testing, claiming there had been 100 incidents from the application site since March. They said the applicant's car was partially blocking the shared access to Carlisle Parade and the steps leading to the car park. Both of these serve as escape routes for Queens Apartment residents in case of fire and other emergencies.

The applicant said that their cars have been damaged and they have involved the police as a result.

The Lead Licensing Officer asked if difficult or aggressive customers would leave through the VIP area, and what would happen when removing a customer through that area. The applicant answered they would have security to deal with this. The Lead Licensing Officer then asked if the applicant had contacted the other licensed premises in the town regarding the new Martyns Law and advice on counter terrorism provisions for large scale venues. The applicant explained they are seen as competition and wont engage with them.

The Sub-Committee were of the firm view that the impact of the proposed venue would be significant, it has not been addressed by the Applicant, and overall would be disproportionate and unreasonable to expect residents to suffer that impact. The application was rejected.