Agenda item

To consider the report of the Head of Elections, Licensing and Registration on an application for the grant of a premises licence, made by Dan Hall T/a DRH Health Ltd, for Winstons Health And Leisure DRH Health Ltd, 295 Dewsbury Road, Hunslet, Leeds, LS11 5LS.

The Sub Committee considered an application made by Mr D Hall trading as DRH Health Ltd for the grant of a Premises Licence for “Winston’s Health and Leisure”, Dewsbury Road, Leeds LS11 5LS. The application sought the sale of alcohol everyday 20:00 until 05:00 hours and the provision of recorded music 23:00 until 05:30 hours.

The application had attracted representations from a local ward Councillor, West Yorkshire Police, LCC Environmental Protection Team (LCC EPT) and LCC Health & Safety Team (LCC H&S). Prior to the meeting, the applicant agreed to the measures suggested by LCC EPT and LCC H&S to address the public safety and prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. The representations had subsequently been withdrawn subject to these measures being included within the operating schedule for the premises, should this application be granted. Councillor Nash did not attend the hearing, the Sub Committee resolved to consider her written representation and proceed in her absence.

Prior to the hearing, Members of the Sub Committee had undertaken a site visit to the premises.

Mr Dan Hall, the applicant attended the hearing accompanied by Mr D Craig, his barrister. PC Cath Arkle and Sgt. Dave Shaw attended for West Yorkshire Police (WYP). Several members of the public attended the hearing as observers, including representatives from local media organisations.

The parties indicated at the outset of the hearing that their submissions would include discussion of the content of the supplementary information, which had been designated as exempt from publication under the provisions of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3). As such, the observers were advised that the Sub Committee would aim to hold as much of the hearing in public as possible but that there would be points when the observers would be asked to leave the meeting to facilitate consideration of the exempt information.

Additionally, the Legal Adviser to the Sub Committee noted receipt by her of a document supplied by the applicant, referred to as the “Winston’s Agreement”. This had not been seen by the Sub Committee or WYP and time was allowed for the document to be read. The Sub Committee and WYP accepted the document for consideration at the hearing.

Mr D Craig addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of the applicant. He stated that Mr D Hall held a Personal Licence and had owned the premises since January 2014, not 2013 as suggested in some of the documentation. He also intended to become the Designated Premises Supervisor for the premises if the application was granted. The application was made in order to provide two activities – alcohol and recorded music. Alcohol would be served from a vending machine which would control sales, facilitate stock control and provide a safe environment for patrons. Anyone serving alcohol would hold a Personal Licence.

Mr Craig sought to demonstrate that Mr Hall would be a responsible licence holder. He stated that the applicant had engaged with the responsible authorities prior to the application being made; even though the Guidance did not require an applicant to do so and had reached agreement with LCC EPT and LCC Health & Safety. Members attention was directed to the pro-forma setting out the steps the applicant intended to take to promote the licensing objectives, which included the measures agreed with LCC EPT and LCC Health and Safety Team. Mr Craig emphasised that WYP had not raised any issues with the contents of the operating schedule.

Turning to the representation submitted by local ward Councillor E Nash, Mr Craig highlighted that the opening hours of a premises were not a licensable activity. Mr Craig also referred to the site visit where Members had the opportunity to listen to recorded music being played to assess the volume and whether it would be audible outside of the premises. He suggested it would not cause nuisance to any nearby residents and would be covered by the measures agreed with LCC EPT.

The Sub Committee then went into closed session to consider and discuss Mr Craig’s comments on the supplementary information supplied by WYP.

Returning to open session, PC Arkle addressed the Sub Committee and provided an outline of the licensing history of the premises, which had previously been known as “Churchill’s”:

-  2004 – the premises and the Omega Club in Sheffield were raided in a joint operation between West Yorkshire Police and South Yorkshire Police; Court proceedings in relation to running a brothel and living off immoral earnings were brought against both clubs.

-  2006 - A Premises Licence held by “Churchill’s” was revoked when the premises had been found to be operating as a brothel following a WYP operation.

-  The building was seized following a raid, as the proceeds of crime

-  2013 - An application for a premises licence was withdrawn in 2013 following receipt of objections from WYP.

PC Arkle stated the Mr Hall had worked at the premises for many years and in 2013; he worked as a doorman at the premises. PC Arkle provided details of a police operation at the premises in 2013 when 29 arrests were made for drug related offences. PC Arkle accepted that Mr Hall had taken control of the premises in 2014; but noted it was only two months after the raid. PC Arkle confirmed that Mr Hall had been in contact with WYP over the proposed premises licence application and added that although she felt that Mr Hall was a personable man, she had visited Winston’s and seen the set-up and the beds provided. She stated that the term “health and leisure club” was synonymous with a premises run as a brothel.

At that point the Sub Committee again went into closed session to hear further information from PC Arkle and to discuss the contents of the exempt information contained within the supplementary pack.

In open session, discussions with PC Arkle focused on police operations undertaken against the premises and its owner(s) and the evidence presented to show the connections between historic occurrences and the current operation of the premises.

The Sub Committee went into closed session again to hear the first part of the applicant’s summing-up, which addressed WYP comments made on the supplementary documents. In open session, Mr Craig stated that WYP had not substantiated their contention that “Winston’s” operated as a brothel. Granting the application would allow the Sub Committee to add any conditions they felt appropriate to the Operating Schedule and afford the Licensing Authority the opportunity to regulate and monitor the premises.

The Sub Committee then discussed the following matters with the applicant:

-  The contents of the ‘Winston’s Agreement’ tabled at the meeting

-  The nature of the employees ID; qualifications and employment documentation retained by Mr Hall

-  Safeguarding of the employees

The Sub Committee carefully considered the application as submitted by the applicant; including the measures offered by the applicant and those agreed with the LCC EPT and LCC Health & Safety to address the licensing objectives. Members also carefully considered the submissions of Mr Craig and Mr Hall made at the meeting and the information they provided during discussions.

The Sub Committee also considered the representation made by WYP, including the exempt information contained within the supplementary pack and the submissions made by PC Arkle and Sgt. Shaw at the hearing.

Members had regard to the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub Committee also had regard to their findings during the site visit to the premises earlier in the day.

Having considered all the information before them, Members were of the view that this was a finely balanced decision. The key for the Sub Committee was whether the premises were operated as a brothel or not. Members considered, in view of their site visit to the premises, that the layout of the rooms and the furnishings, particularly within the VIP suites, were inconsistent with a massage parlour.  As such, Members considered that the layout and the red lighting throughout the main parts supported the view that the premises engaged in brothel activities.

The Sub Committee considered whether the licence could be granted with conditions being attached.  However, in their view of the overall impression of the premises as a brothel, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that the grant of this premises licence would promote the licensing objectives; particularly the prevention of crime and disorder. Members therefore

RESOLVED – To refuse the application.