Democracy in Crawley

How decisions are made and who represents you

Agenda item

Application to Vary the 'Club Premises Certificate' - Crawley Masonic Club, St Margaret's Hall, Ifield Green, Crawley

To consider report HCS/12of the Head of Community Services.

 

Councillors are asked to bring the Licensing Handbook to the meeting, which has been circulated with the agenda.

Minutes:

The Sub Committee considered an application to vary the Club Premises Certificate in respect of Crawley Masonic Club, St Margaret’s Hall, Ifield Green, Crawley.

 

Following the introduction of those present at the meeting, the Legal Clerk outlined the procedure for the meeting.  The Legal Clerk informed all parties that the Sub Committee had requested a pre-meeting with the Legal Clerk and Democratic Services Officer prior to the commencement of the Sub Committee, to confirm the procedure that would be followed during the meeting. At that pre-meeting the Sub Committee had confirmed receipt of the supplementary agenda documents which had been circulated following publication of the main agenda.  It was confirmed that the Sub Committee had not asked for clarification of any aspect of the application or on the representations received from any party.

 

The Legal Clerk then asked all parties present, if they wished to make any relevant applications, for example to rely upon additional information, an adjournment or to cross-examine any party.  No applications were made.

 

Report HCS/12 of the Council’s Head of Community Services was presented by Mr Lyons.

 

The Application

 

Mr Lyons, informed the Sub Committee that on 20 December 2018 ‘Crawley Masonic Club’, had submitted an application to the Council as the Licensing Authority for the Borough of Crawley to vary the Club Premises Certificate (CPC) for the premises – Crawley Masonic Club, St Margaret’s Hall, Ifield Green, Crawley in accordance with the provision of the Licensing Act 2003.  A copy of the application was set out in Appendix A to the report, which included information provided by the Applicant as to how the four licensing objectives would be promoted.

 

The application proposed to vary the CPC:

 

(i) To extend the supply of alcohol as follows:

Mon – Sat       11.00 – 01.00hrs (the existing hours were 11.00 to 23.00)

(The application did not seek to vary the existing hours for the supply of alcohol on Sundays or holidays)

 

(ii) To extend the opening hours

Mon – Sat       10.00 – 02.00hrs (the existing hours were 10.00 to 01.00)

(The application did not seek to vary the existing opening hours for Sundays or holidays)

 

It was confirmed that the application had been advertised in accordance with legislation and as a result of the consultation process Sussex Police had submitted a relevant representation in which they proposed additional conditions to the CPC (Appendix E to the report) if the application to vary was granted.  The applicant had confirmed to the Council that they agreed to the additional conditions proposed by Sussex Police.

 

Environmental Services had also submitted a relevant representation in which the officer stated that according to their records, Environmental Health (Pollution Team) had not received any noise complaints concerning the premises and whilst aware some interested parties referred to loud music, Environmental Services had no evidence to support or counter such claims.  The representation also stated that as the proposed changes only related to the sale of alcohol and no extension to regulated entertainment, Environmental Health consequently had raised no objection to the application (Appendix C).

 

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service also submitted a relevant representation which it stated had no objection to the application (Appendix D).

 

The Licensing Authority had also received 8 relevant representations raising objections to the application (attached as Appendices F - M to the report). 

 

The Sub Committee was then guided through the remainder of the report which set out the reasons for the Hearing and the matters which the Sub Committee should take into consideration when dealing with the application, including some of the relevant sections of the Guidance issued by Government pursuant of Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s policy considerations.

 

It was emphasised that all licensing determinations should be considered on a case-by-case basis, be evidence-based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate.  It was also emphasised that the section 182 guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the Council’s own Policy indicated that the Council should look to the Police as the main source of advice in relation to crime and disorder.

 

The Sub Committee was informed that should problems arise in future it is possible for an application to be made to the Council to undertake a review of the CPC.

 

Mr Lyons then proceeded to inform the Hearing of the options available to it in respect of the application, and reminded the Sub Committee that any decision must be appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives. The options were to:

 

1.         Modify the conditions of the certificate.

 

2.         Reject the whole or part of the application.

 

 

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of the Council’s Senior Licensing Officer

 

The Sub Committee then asked the following questions of the Council’s Senior Licensing Officer:

 

Questions by the Sub Committee

Response (respondent in brackets)

 

Please can the conditions from the Police be clarified?

 

Page 33 of the agenda bundle referred to a representation letter from Sussex Police. Sussex Police had imposed additional conditions as referred to on page 34, which the club had indicated they have accepted.  If Members decided to grant the application, part of granting the application the conditions would form part of the variation.

(Mike Lyons)

 

The application sought to vary hours of serving alcohol and also relating to hours opening. However even if the committee was not minded to vary the CPC in those respects the Sub Committee could still impose these conditions or some form of these conditions or any other conditions it wished. 

(Legal Clerk)

Have there been any breaches of licensing objectives in the past?

The Council as Licensing Authority had not had any dealings with the Club and not received any complaints.  Environmental Services had indicated similar.

(Mike Lyons)

Are there any limits on the number of people allowed on the premises?

That matter comes under the Fire Regulatory Order and is now determined by the Fire Chief.

(Mike Lyons)

 

The Applicant

 

Mr Ryan Smith, on behalf of the Applicant addressed the Sub Committee and made the following submissions:

 

·       Crawley Masonic Hall is a members’ only club.  It is not hired out to non-members;

·         The bar in the hall is used approximately 60 times per year and the masonic year runs from October until April, avoiding the summer months;

·         The extension applied for is to allow members the opportunity to have a drink legally after a meeting should they wish as occasionally meetings run late;

·         During the last year, the hall had been hired out twice to members and no complaints were received.

·         Residents’ representations regarding the parking and smoking have been acknowledged and communications had been issued to all residents notifying how the Club have attempted to tackle the concerns. The Club had:

o   Asked members to be considerate and to park in nearby public car park.

o   Contacted local taxi firms to seek their co-operation to reduce noise when collecting members.

o   Provided a smoking area for members

·       There had been no complaints to the local authorities.

·       Club contact details would be provided to local residents should they have future concerns regarding the Club in order to resolve issues promptly.

·     The Club appreciated it is an emotive topic and wished to work with the local community but feel the areas are being addressed.

 

As a point of clarification, Mr Lyons, informed those present that whilst nearby parking was a concern raised by the interested parties, it fell outside the remit of the licensing objectives and was therefore the responsibility of other enforcement bodies and not of the Licensing Authority. 

 

Mr Ryan Smith further added that whilst it was acknowledged that parking was not the responsibility of the Licensing Authority, as responsible neighbours the Club would be happy to publish the dates of the Club’s meetings so the enforcement officers were aware as the club would discourage their members from parking illegally.

 

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of the Applicant

 

The Sub Committee then asked the following questions of the Applicant:

 

Questions by the Sub Committee

Response (respondent in brackets)

 

How many members usually attend the meetings and what percentage would potentially stay on after the meeting is over?

On average approximately 35 members per meeting, arrive at about 5.30pm in the evening.  The events usually go on until around 9.30pm/10.00pm.  There are larger meetings however, but never usually more than 20 people staying until 11.00pm. 

(Adam Humphrey)

 

The biggest lodge in Crawley probably has between 6-10 members staying behind after a meeting, maybe sometimes up to 20.   The majority of meetings occur midweek so it’s unusual for many to stay usually just a few members wish to stay. 

(Ryan Smith)

A point of clarification, if the applicant could please just provide a rough indication of the measurements of the bar area please? (page 27 of the agenda pack)

(Mike Lyons)

The bar area on the west side of the building is 20ft in length and 18ft in width. There is seating area around the edge. The bar is in the middle. The exit people use is on the west of the building which faces out on to the road. The back of the building on the east of the building backs onto Old Manor Close. The picture of the rear elevation of the building can be found in the supplementary agenda. Fire exits are on the north and south. 

(Adam Humphrey)

 

It would be very difficult to get more than 20 people at the bar at once and if so it would be “standing room only”.  It is not a drinking club, it’s a Masonic Hall and therefore has the facility for people to have a drink and the club does not have a large bar which does not dominate the premises.

(Ryan Smith)

Is there a maximum number of people allowed in the hall from the fire department certificate?

Believed it is 88 but it’s never been an issue as the meetings are never that big.  The biggest lodge holds the largest meeting and had 60 people in attendance. There are restrictions owing to members’ during meetings and the placement of tables and chairs makes it difficult to get the maximum number within the hall.  Clarification would be needed from the Fire Chief for the exact number.  It used to be under the old system, around 100 but it was changed.   

(Ryan Smith)

 

 

Interested Party (Ms Jacqueline Smith)

 

Ms Jacqueline Smith addressed the Sub Committee objecting to the application and made the following submissions:

 

·       Parking was a concern with Old Manor Close with vehicles arriving mid-afternoon.  It was felt this would cause potential access issues for emergency vehicles.

·       Whilst acknowledging the Club had requested their members park in other areas she questioned the enforcement of such an approach.

·       There were concerns that the future increase in hours would results in an increase in hall rental for functions.

·       Ms Jacqueline Smith believed that granting the application would not be conducive for residents’ quality of life;

·       The applicant mentioned the club hadn’t received any complaints, however Miss DP had informed her that she had previously complained to the Brighton branch of the Masonic Club.

 

As a point of clarification, Mr Lyons informed the Sub Committee that that parking issues were a matter for Sussex Police unless it was a local enforcement matter.  It was also emphasised that the application before the Sub Committee was not one for review of the CPC and consequently the Sub Committee could only consider the current application before it.

 

In response to Ms Jacqueline Smith, Mr Ryan Smith commented that the Brighton centre was not a branch of Crawley Masonic Hall Ltd and unfortunately the Crawley Masonic Hall had received any communication but would be interested to know the relevant dates and details. 

 

Questions by the Sub Committee

Response (respondent in brackets)

 

People do not appreciate that when there is a complaint, the best procedure to follow is to approach Mr Lyons in the Licensing Department as the Licensing Authority is that correct?

 

(Councillor B J Burgess)

 

That is correct, if it is a licensing objection or a concern regarding a licensed premises individuals can come to the Licensing department and raise the matter.  Again if it is a parking issue it can referred to the Parking Enforcement Team.

(Mike Lyons)

 

 

Interested Party (Mr John Byng)

 

Mr John Byng addressed the Sub Committee in objection to the application and made the following submissions:

 

·         Mr Byng confirmed his correct address for the Sub Committee’s records;

·         He had concerns that the long hours being requested did not justify the small number of members remaining, nor the wages of the steward;

·         He questioned the number of meetings the Club said that they had per year, together with the minimal number of additional events;

·         He said he had had previous issues with catering vans parking on pavement but not necessarily with regards to members’ parking.

·         Mr Byng added that he had no serious complaints against the club and felt they were good neighbours.  However he did have concerns that should the licensing hours be extended this would lead to the potential for public nuisance.

·         He said that he understood that various similar clubs operated within the town which did not have as late licensing hours (as being requested in the application) and he queried if occasional extensions to the licence could be adopted.

 

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of Mr John Byng

 

The Sub Committee confirmed that it did not have any questions for Mr John Byng.

 

 

Interested Party (Mrs Pauline Smith representing Miss DP)

 

Mrs Pauline Smith addressed the Sub Committee in support of Miss DP’s written representation made in respect of the application and made the following submissions:

 

·       Mrs Pauline Smith said she lives right next door to the Hall;

·       She said that if an event takes place therefore, it usually finishes by 10.00pm;

·       She said that if the side door is open, occasionally some noise can be heard from inside.

 

Questions asked by the Sub Committee of Mrs Pauline Smith

 

The Sub Committee confirmed that it did not have any questions for Pauline Smith

 

Questions asked by the Interested Parties of the Applicant (Mr Adam Humphrey)

 

The interested parties then asked the following questions of the Applicant, (Mr Adam Humphrey)

 

 

Questions by the Interested Parties (questioner in brackets)

 

Response (respondent in brackets)

 

It was enquired whether the Applicant and the Licensing Authority had considered the option which is a feature of the Emerald Sports and Social Club licence that the licence should remain the same but the possibility of a limited number of extensions per year?

(John Byng)

There are a number of different types of clubs in Crawley.  The Emerald Club is a “recognised club” as it holds a premises licence which is similar to a pub licence where the public can enter if the members and committee so wish.

 

The Crawley Masonic Club is a private members’ club run under a CPC not a licence so they do not have the authority to serve alcohol to the public.

 

With regards to the limited number of extensions, although it was possible to apply for this, that is not what the applicant applied for in the application being considered so the Licensing Authority cannot consider that request unless the Sub Committee decide it would be appropriate in this instance.

 

The applicant could apply for a temporary event notice (TEN) for up to 15 events a year for a maximum of 21 days. If it was the Sub Committee’s decision not to grant the application today, the Club could submit a TEN.  This would be granted unless an objection is raised by Environmental Health or the Police.  

(Mike Lyons)

 

A TEN was considered but it was hard to gauge how many members would turn up for an individual meeting and we don’t confirm numbers until 7 days prior. From an administrative point of view, the timescales are not feasible for submitting a TEN. In addition our meetings aren’t classed as events.  The current licence finishes at 11.00pm and the certificate variation would allow members to have a drink legally. 

(Ryan Smith)

The applicants are referring to their present behaviour and present patterns. But there is concern here about the potential. This licence applied for provides the potential to hire the hall out to members any number of times a year until 2.00am. Currently residents live with the Masonic Hall right next door to residential properties without any problems at present and that’s the way it should be left. 

(John Byng)

As indicated in the letter that was issued to local residents, the club is applying for an hour’s extension of the premises being open. The hall will not be rented to the public.  It has only been hired out twice in the last year.

(Adam Humphrey)

 

To confirm the Club is a private members’ club and for guests and members only.  The club does not have a premises licence and cannot issue alcohol to non-members and consequently would need to apply for a TEN.  There is also a review mechanism, and Sussex Police or the Licensing Authority should be contacted in the first instance. Following the compilation of sufficient evidence a review could be called if the conditions were breached.

(Mike Lyons)

 

 

 

Further Questions asked by the Sub Committee of the Applicant

 

The Sub Committee then asked the following further questions of the applicant:

 

Questions by the Sub Committee

Response

 

Does the Club’s rules prevent the hiring to the public?

 

The Club’s Byelaws prevent the hiring to the public. We only hire out to Members and a Member must be present for the duration.  Irrespective of the Bylaws, the current certificate prevents the supply of alcohol to the public.

(Ryan Smith)

Who is responsible for hiring the hall if a TEN is applied for and there is a noise complaint?

 

Under a temporary event notice, if there is a noise complaint it would be the person responsible for the TEN.

(Mike Lyons)

If the Club is hiring the hall to members for other events, would the club consider restricting the hiring times to the “old times”? 

And is it a fair compromising situation for Mr Byng?

Whilst not committing on behalf of all the members but the events that the club hire are very limited but it is something that could be considered. 

(Ryan Smith)

 

It was not thought possible to grant a licence to sell alcohol until 1.00am and to stay open until 2.00am and then set a restriction on the number of events that can take place there.  That needs clarification from the Licensing Officer.

 

Lodge meetings and events need to be looked at together and consideration needs to be given whether it is reasonable to extend the licence and the potential that the number of lodge meetings and the number of events will be higher than at present.

(John Byng)

 

Mr Byng is correct.  The application is for 1.00am and 2.00am respectively for the use of lodge meetings.  There are various options available but in terms of restrictions on the number of meetings or outside lodge meetings, outside of lodge meetings do not appear to be the current concern due to the limited number.  The Sub Committee has before it an application and could restrict the times per the current application or reject the application.  

(Mike Lyons)

 

There is too much reliance upon past good behaviour when dealing here with a licence for the future.  The whole purpose of licensing is to restrict potential for problems. The purpose for reviews is to deal with past problems and act upon past problems.  I’m not here complaining about past issues we want to prevent the possibility of future problems. Extending this licence to 1.00am for alcohol and 2.00am for the premises in a residential area is potentially damaging to the public nuisance issue but also sets a bad precedent that the Committee might have to deal with for other licensing applications.     

(John Byng)

Please can the applicant confirm that they accept the 7 proposed conditions detailed on page 34 of report HCS/12?

 

The club had direct contact with Sussex Police and accept all the additional conditions that were imposed.

(Adam Humphrey)

 

Closing Statement on behalf of the Applicant (Mr Adam Humphrey)

 

Mr Ryan Smith made the following points in his closing statement:

·       The Club would provide contact details to the local residents committee should they wish to contact the Club about issues or concerns.

·       The issues raised by residents regarding parking and smoking had been addressed (contacting local taxi firms and the siting of a smoking area).

·       The Club had requested its members to park in a nearly public car park.

·       The Club showed a willingness to engage with the local community.

 

Closing Statement by the Interested Party (Mr John Byng)

 

Mr John Byng made the following points in his closing statement:

·       He acknowledged the past behaviour had been generally good, and he had no serious complaints.

·       However he was concerned the granting of the application would create a ‘precedent’.

·       He said he welcomed the willingness of the club for contact details to be shared and to engage with the community.

 

Closing Statement by the Interested Party (Ms Jacqueline Smith)

 

Ms Jacqueline Smith made the following points in her closing statement:

·       She expressed concern that the extension in hours would result in the potential for public nuisance.

·       She said in her view the more times the Club were able to hire out would result in additional disturbance for residents.

Supporting documents: