Posted on

Woods Whur successfully represent Black Orchid in their application for the fourth and final SEV licence in Leeds

Leeds City Council changed their policy for the licensing of Sexual Entertainment Venues (SEV) in 2013. A cap of four was introduced, and only three of the then existing six gentleman’s clubs/lap dancing bars had their licences renewed. As a result, there has been one licence available in Leeds which has been keenly sought. The Leeds City Council’s licensing of Sex Establishments Statement of Licensing Policy is prescriptive as to where licences of this nature can be issued and they must not be near properties with sensitive uses or in sensitive locations.

After lodging an application for Tokyo Industries at the former Townhouse premises on Crown Street in Leeds to be called the Black Orchid, I worked with Philip Kolvin QC to prepare and present a successful application before the Leeds Licensing Authority. This was a significant achievement when set against the backdrop of 78 objections and a petition of 200 plus signatories against the premises being used as a gentleman’s club/lap dancing bar. Many of the objectors attended the hearing but Philip Kolvin QC was able to persuade the Authority to grant the licence notwithstanding such a high level of opposition, including the local MP, residents from a close residential block, a 24 hour gym, commercial developers and the operators of the competitors Purple Door.

Our client, Tokyo Industries operates 32 venues in the UK employing over 2000 people, and already operates an SEV premises with the same name in the heart of the historic city centre of York. Those premises are close to residential properties and operate near to the Hilton Hotel in York.

We submitted on behalf of the Applicant that this was the ideal location for an SEV as it was in the night time economy and was going to be operated at the first and second floor with a new quality restaurant being established in the ground floor of the premises. The entrance to the gentleman’s club and lap dancing bar was to be moved down Assembly Street via a discreet entrance and there would only be one sign, which would only be visible when the premises were open, from 10pm. There was to be no sexual imagery or language on the advert and a first floor balcony smoking area which would be screened off from the public would be created. The Applicant was confident that it could operate without conflict with neighbours. Many of the objectors were from a close residential block at 2 Crown Street buildings and other objectors quoted the night time use of the gym and the close proximity to the historic listed building of the Corn Exchange.

Philip Kolvin QC highlighted to the Committee the following key points:-

  1. The policy states that the city centre is the only appropriate location for SEVs, the number is set at four provided the premises are not near premises with sensitive uses or in sensitive locations. This would be the fourth and final licence if granted.
  2. In relation to locations, the public survey for the policy highlighted 11 areas and the Council had carried out public consultation regarding those 11 areas. The results of that consultation, contained in the policy, showed that the 11th area which was not regarded as sensitive was the Call Lane/The Calls/Assembly Street area – precisely where these premises are situated.
  3. We pointed out that the police and the Local Authority had not objected to this application and were not opposed to it whereas there had been objections to previous applications to secure the fourth licence.
  4. Our argument was that in The Calls/Assembly Street, all buildings are near something that might be regarded as “sensitive”. For example, there is the Corn Exchange or the residential blocks of flats. Philip Kolvin submitted this was not a residential area as defined by the Policy and was less residential than York Place – where two of the existing licences trade. He highlighted this was not a retail shopping area, although there was shops with retail use nearby.
  5. Our final point was that this was a late night entertainment area in accordance with the policy and was the most acceptable in the public’s consideration as shown by responses to the consultation.

Many objectors attempted to raise concerns about the close proximity to the Corn Exchange, which is a listed building. We highlighted that it was not the age of the building which was the issue but the use. The use of the Corn Exchange was not commemorative and has day time use only, which would be unaffected by the SEV premises, which would only be able to open from 10pm. Philip Kolvin argued that it would not be inconsistent with what the policy is trying to achieve.

Having heard all of our submissions and those of the objectors, the Licensing Authority granted the licence. Having heard from all parties, the Committee believed that the application would not infringe the policy and therefore the fourth licence should be granted.

I am of course delighted that we have secured the fourth licence for one of our key operator clients. Since the policy changes in 2013 I have advised on countless buildings where I have had to tell the client not to apply because the premises infringed the policy. Lap dancing bars or gentleman’s clubs, or whatever you want to call them, get significant opposition when they first apply for a licence and I have conducted some very stressful hearings over the years. The truth is that they are lawful, licensed and controlled, and importantly I haven’t been involved in non-compliance or enforcement issues with our clients once they have secured a licence.

I would like to thank Philip Kolvin Q.C. for the time and input preparing for the hearing and his skilful presentation of the facts against the backdrop of the policy.

Posted on

Woods Whur & Innpacked

We are delighted that our relationship with Innpacked is still going strong. Our clients are benefiting from our hook up with them and many are taking advantage of the direct link into their training packages. We have also had some real success with bespoke packages being tailored to our clients needs.

Innpacked is one of the most successful training companies in the UK hospitality industry. Their client base ranges from large multinationals to individual clients who are just beginning their career. The reason for our hook up with them is their ability to provide training that suits our client’s individual needs. They deliver mandatory courses that vary from the Level 2 Award for Personal Licence Holders, which is required to gain a personal alcohol licence, to the Level 4  Award in Food Safety in Catering. They also design bespoke courses which are written and delivered to our client’s exact requirements, such as employee and management induction courses. Their  main goal is to not only deliver quality training, but training that is relevant and adds value to your business or career.

Latest dates for Leeds APLH courses are as follows:

  • 20 April 2017
  • 18 May 2017
  • 22 June 2017

If you need to book anyone on these courses during the summer months please contact Kathryn@innpacked.com or you can call her on 0800 078 6056.

Please either click on the following link to see their APLH courses:

http://www.innpacked.com/course/aplh/

or for the whole suit of courses on:

http://www.innpacked.com/courses/

Posted on

Woods Whur announce strategic partnership with UK CRS

We are delighted to have agreed a strategic partnership with UK CRS, a leading Loss Prevention Company. It became apparent to me that we already have a number of mutual clients. As a result I met up with them to see whether there was potential in having a joint working relationship, to market to our existing client base and to add value to our long-standing relationships with our clients.

As a result of these discussions, the company has agreed to discounted rates for Woods Whur clients. They have developed some fantastic web and app based solutions. We are going to take over the legal representation side of their claims from their existing legal team and work towards a seamless instruction through their systems, to reduce cost and increase efficiency to clients.

The 3 key areas that they cover are :-

  • Civil Recovery
  • Employment Screening
  • Online Fraud Detection

Their experienced and dedicated team are supported by a state of the art technology infrastructure developed from years of experience in the credit scoring and civil recovery sectors. It is worthwhile having a look at their website: www.ukcrs.com to get a steer on whom they are currently representing and how they focus on their services. Continue reading Woods Whur announce strategic partnership with UK CRS

Posted on

Trade Objectors test the definition of a “street” in a betting office application case

Since the Gambling Act 2005 came into force on the 1 September 2007 there have been a few challenges by trade objectors to applications for betting office licenses. There has been no repeat of the standard trade objection to applications for betting office licences under the previous 1963 Act which often resulted in lengthy hearings before the Magistrates Court.

In a recent application however for a betting office licence in Manchester, Betfred sought to block an application by Bet 138 for a betting office licence arguing that the mandatory principles for betting licences could not be complied with. I have no doubt that the fact that the application was close to a huge Betfred shop in China Town Manchester influenced the decision to try and block the grant of a new licence. Trade protection is still alive! The Gambling Commission Guidance to Licensing Authorities sets out the relevant access provisions for each type of gambling premises and confirms that in so far as betting shops are concerned the following access provision must apply:

Access must be from a “street” or from other premises within a betting premises licence and there must be no direct access from a betting shop to another premises used for the retail sale of merchandise or services. In effect, they cannot be an entrance to a betting shop from a shop of any kind unless that shop is itself a licence betting premises.

The definition of a street appears in paragraph 7.21 as “including any bridge, road, lane, footway, subway, square, court, alley or passage (including passages through enclosed premises such as shopping malls) whether a thoroughfare or not. This is to allow access through areas which the public might enter for purposes other than gambling, for example, access to Casinos from hotel foyers.

What were the circumstances that led Betfred to set themselves out as the “enforcers of gambling legislation”? Bet 138 applied for a betting office licence within 41 Faulkner Street in Manchester. 41 Fortner Street is a large building in China Town with several steps up to a foyer on the ground floor. There was a unit to the right of the foyer which Bet 138 sought a licence for and which had previously operated as a Tailors and a unit to the left of the foyer which had previously operated as a hairdressers. The stairs off the foyer led to a printing works which the public had access to and there was further office accommodation above the printing works. Betfred argued that as the betting shop door led to the foyer of 41 Faulkner Street, Manchester, it did not lead to a “street” and therefore the application could not be granted.

Part 7 of the Gambling Commission Guidance to Local Authorities sets out a number of helpful paragraphs in clarifying the rationale behind the requirement to have access from a street. It confirms that a single building could have more than one premises licence in that one premises licence could be granted to a unit in a basement and another to a unit on the ground floor. It guards Local Authorities against licensing areas which are artificially segregated or separated and paragraph 7.19 refers licensing Authorities to look at the unlicensed area from which there is access to gambling. The clear interpretation is that the Gambling Act 2005 does not want betting shops opening if the public are not clear that they are leaving an unlicensed area and entering a betting shop.

I have to say it was very difficult to understand the Betfred argument and it would appear from the speed of the decision that Manchester Licensing Committee did not quite understand the argument as well. The facts of the case were very clear. The foyer at the top of the stairs was an unlicensed area. It was an area to which the public had access for purposes other than gambling. The public would access that foyer either to use the units to the right, the unit to the left or the printing shop on the first floor. It was quite clearly therefore an area to which the public accessed for purposes other than gambling and was a foyer in an enclosed premises just as a passage through a shopping mall does a thoroughfare in enclosed premises.

The application was granted and the Committee accepted the Applicants arguments and appeared to give little weight to the trade objectors submissions.

Posted on

Woods Whur is successful with grant of a new premises licence in the red zone of Leeds Cumulative Impact Area

Last week I appeared in front of the Leeds Licensing Sub-Committee to make an application for a new premises licence for a food outlet in Hirst’s Yard. The location is in the middle of one of the two red zones in Leeds, where crime and disorder is still increasing even though the CIP has been tight for many years. There is a presumption therefore that all new premises licences of this type should be refused unless the applicant can rebut the presumption of refusal.

We engaged the Police and the Licensing Authority officer and discussed our thoughts before lodging the application. It is accepted that the topography of the area lends itself to being a crime hotspot. It is a narrow passageway with three exit routes, poorly lit and lots of commercial premises have their skips for waste there. This has created a perfect environment for drug dealers to congregate and look to the young people socialising in the area as their target market.

My client already operates a large basement venue in the area and has been working hard with the police to deal with the localised issues in the area. They had an opportunity to take a small property and decided to approach the Regulatory Authorities with a view to applying to create a small late-night takeaway premises. The idea was that this would provide a catalyst to create better lighting and supervision in Hirst’s Yard. There was an offer of an SIA doorman and the introduction of more CCTV cameras in the Yard. The benefit of the applicant being in the area already with a significant security presence meant that they could link in with other doormen should problems occur.

Finally, we offered to restrict the licence for a 6 month trial period to give the opportunity for my client’s plans to be tested. Nevertheless, the Police and Licensing Authority officers felt that they should make representations about the application so the members could decide.

We had a great hearing, exactly how these applications should work, with some probing questions about the operation of the premises. After retiring to consider the application the Sub-Committee came back to grant the licence, agreeing with my submissions that it was worth trying to do something positive to improve the issues in the area. They accepted that all of the risk was on the applicant as this was a time-restricted application, only to last for 6 months, and that it was a positive move that was worth the risk. They have asked for a full report to be circulated to see what the impact is, and if successful, there will need to be an application in 6 months’ time to get a subsequent licence.

The onus now falls on the operator to provide the additional lighting, new doorman and CCTV coverage and to continue to work with the police to help in the area. I represent a number of operators in the vicinity and we are also looking to see if we can improve the position of the refuse skips and drive up the quality of the environment.

 

Posted on

Woods Whur saves the licence for Rah Rah Room at Piccadilly

Woods Whur have been instrumental in saving the premises licence for Rah Rah Room in Piccadilly. After allegations of violence and disorder in the premises on New Year’s Eve, Westminster Police made an application for an expedited Summary Review of the premises licence for Rah Rah Room.

Woods Whur were instructed to challenge the application for suspension of the premises licence at the Interim Steps hearing which was not successful. An application was made for representations against those Interim Steps which again was not successful and the police applied for revocation of the premises licence at the final review hearing. Philip Kolvin Q.C was instructed by Woods Whur to represent the premises licence holder at the final hearing.

We are delighted to announce that we were able to persuade the Licensing Authority not to revoke the premises licence after a very lengthy hearing on Friday of last week.

“This is the first time in Westminster that a revocation has been avoided after a premises licence has been suspended at the Interim Steps stage of expedited review proceedings. We are also delighted that we were able to persuade the Licensing Authority not to reduce the hours of operation at the venue, remove any of the permitted activities or add overly onerous conditions to the premises licence. This means that the premises do not have to change their style of operation”, Andy Woods, Partner of Woods Whur Solicitors.

This has marked a phenomenal start to the New Year at Woods Whur. We have been successful in defending two appeals for the London Borough of Newham, with costs in full awarded against the unsuccessful Appellants on dismissal of the appeals. Following on from those cases, the decision in the Rah Rah Room case has meant that 2017 has started as 2016 finished with the fabulous outcome in the Fabric case.

 

Posted on

Woods Whur Celebrate their 5th Birthday

It only seems like yesterday that having talked about setting up our own firm for many years Paddy and I eventually decided to form Woods Whur on 1 October 2011. We had a very short window to get everything up and running which with the benefit of hindsight was probably a good thing as it meant that we never really stopped to think about all of the hard work involved in setting up a new law firm.

We were delighted to announce recently that Paul Holland was also joining the team and Paddy and I have known Paul for longer than all three of us would care to remember! When Paddy and I started practising as solicitors in Hull Magistrates Court over twenty five years ago Paul was already a well established and well respected advocate. Paul specialises in licensing with over thirty years of advocacy experience and represents his clients both before licensing committees and on appeals under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Gambling Act 2005. Paul has considerable experience of dealing with the licensing requirements of all clients ranging from a small corner shop to an international sports stadium. He has a significant network of contacts within the regulatory authorities of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire and we are very excited about working with Paul in the future. Paul can be contacted on 07702 802 470 or Paul@www.woodswhur.co.uk.

We have been extremely fortunate to work with a number of great clients and to be involved in some significant licensing cases. We have appeared before local authorities throughout the United Kingdom and in Crown Courts and in the last few months have been involved in some ground breaking cases involving Fabric nightclub and Park Lane Casino. Kerry Welburn and Carole Collingwood have been with us since day one and indeed it would be remiss of me not to mention that on 8 November 2016 Carole celebrated (!!) seventeen years of working with Paddy. Tanya Broadhurst who we worked with at Walker Morris came back to work with us at Woods Whur which was great news and we have been exceptionally pleased with Amy Hayward who joined us earlier this year.

It is also hard to imagine that Anna Mathias has now been with us for nearly two years. Anna has settled in and is a great addition to the firm and a great advert for the firm. Anna has dealt with numerous cases particularly in the gambling sector and is an exceptionally experienced and well respected barrister within the industry. The only disappointment for Anna is that during her time at Woods Whur her beloved Swindon Town have not enjoyed the same success as she has although she remains a loyal and devoted follower. I am sure that Paul Holland who is a big fan of Hull City will be hoping that his team and Anna’s team do not meet each other in the near future!

Paddy and I would like to express our sincere thanks to all of our clients who we thoroughly enjoy working with and all the local and responsible authorities involved in our cases. The leisure sector continues to be a great industry to work in and we hope that we continue to do so for many years.

Posted on

Paul Holland joins Woods Whur

Andy and I are delighted to be able to announce that Paul Holland has joined Woods Whur. Andy and I have known Paul for twenty five years and we are delighted that he has agreed to join us.

Paul has specialised in licensing for thirty years, as well as heading his previous firm’s private client department. He has thirty years’ advocacy experience and represents clients in all applications, reviews and appeals under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Gambling Act 2005. He has developed particular expertise in dealing with the licensing requirements of everything from a small corner shop to an international sports stadium. Paul has a significant network of contacts within the regulatory authorities of Hull, Humberside, East and North Yorkshire which compliments our practice in West Yorkshire and nationally. It is on that basis that Andy and I were delighted that after a successful career as a partner at Stamp Jackson & Proctor and latterly at Quality Lockings Solicitors in Hull, he has agreed to join Woods Whur as a consultant. We are looking forward to adding value to his loyal client base.

He prides himself in working with operators from the initial planning stages to the final grant of licences, representing his clients’ interests before licensing sub-committees and in the Magistrates’ Court, should the need arise.

We continue to be keen to grow our national reach and will be looking to bring other lawyers into the business in similar situations to Paul.