news from 09.2009

26.09.2009

Door supervisors: approved contractor scheme
Saturday, September 26, 2009

A night-club owner has been ordered to use door-staff exclusively from employers who have Approved Contractor Status from the Security Industry Authority.

In September 2008, Surrey Police applied for a review of the premises licence held by Harpers Nightclub in Guildford, following a spate of attacks on customers by door supervisors. Guildford Borough Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee imposed a series of conditions on the club, including the obligation to record activity in the club on CCTV and the requirement to use door staff who were employed by Approved Contractors.

A judicial review challenge to the decision on the grounds of abuse of process failed in the High Court in July, although an application for permission to appeal has been made to the Court of Appeal.

The premises licence holder also appealed to Guildford Magistrates Court. On 23rd September 2009, a consent order was agreed, giving the premises licence holder itself nine months to attain Approved Contractor Status, following which all staff would have to come from Approved Contractors. An interim arrangement was also agreed, requiring an independent audit of the door supervisor function after 6 months.

While the Approved Contractor scheme is a voluntary, it is based on widely recognised business improvement models such as ISO9001, and ensures the contractor has met a series of gold standards including having processes in place to ensure a consistent quality of service delivery, training programmes and corporate social responsibility. The Guildford case demonstrates how it can be used to give greater assurance to statutory agencies and the wider community that door supervisors will be able to play a full part in the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The consent order also required CCTV along forced ejection routes and the surrounding pavements, and the ability for the system to record the faces of all persons entering the club under any lighting conditions.

The premises licence holder was ordered to pay the Council’s costs in the sum of £28,900.

The Council was represented by Philip Kolvin QC.

The club was represented by Kevin de Haan QC.

16.09.2009

Welsh homes reconsidered
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Mark Lowe QC and Clare Parry spent three weeks last summer representing Cardiff County Council and RAG (the local residents group) respectively into the second inquiry into Western Power’s proposals to redevelop this reservoir which is seen by the Council and the objectors as a key element of the strategic landscape framework of the city. Unfortunately the Ministers did not read their final submissions sufficiently closely and wrongly construed the Council’s landscape policies: as a result, they have had to agree to the quashing of the decision in the High Court.

It appears likely that there will be yet another inquiry into these proposals given the changes in circumstances; not least of which is that Cadw has recently listed the structure of the reservoir as a Grade II listed building and therefore listed building consent would now be required to implement the proposals.

Click here for an article covering the inquiry in Planning Magazine

10.09.2009

Development Corporation defeats Mega Church's Olympic relocation bid on appeal
Thursday, September 10, 2009

Mary Cook, assisted by Asitha Ranatunga recently received the Secretary of State’s DL dismissing an appeal in which they appeared at a planning inquiry, instructed by Nigel Hewitson of Norton Rose LLP to act for the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation resisting an appeal by Kingsway International Christian Centre and the London Development Agency against the decision of the Corporation to refuse full planning permission for a phased mixed use development comprising an 8000 seat multi-use auditorium, office, multi-use building, chapel and multi-storey car park, access and landscaping at land at Beam Reach 5, Rainham. The Secretary of State recovered the appeal which concerned proposals on land designated as an Strategic Industrial Location in Havering, following relocation from Hackney to make way for the London 2012 Olympics.

The Corporation’s evidence successfully demonstrated that the development would materially harm the employment objectives of the development plan, contravened PGG 13 objectives and policies seeking to locate community facilities where they are accessible to the communities they serve. The SoS accepted the need for an auditorium large enough for KICC’s growing congregation to worship but considered other elements of the proposals could be disaggregated and accepted that similar benefits could be provided on other sites by creating facilities in locations more accessible to the main communities they serve and less suitable for employment. Over all the benefits did not outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

09.09.2009

Legal 500 2009
Wednesday, September 09, 2009

The 22nd edition of the Legal 500 has just been launched. We are delighted that the range and quality of the work we have been doing over the last year has been recognised: we have more members mentioned in the various categories where we work and have added a ranking in Property Litigation too. The rankings continue to demonstrate our expertise across our areas of practice in Chambers. We expect to see our new silks, Steven Gasztowicz, Philip Kolvin and Simon Bird, back in the rankings next year.

Category:

1. Leading Civil Common Law Sets
   Chambers
2. Administrative and Public Law
   Chambers
   Leading Silk; Mark Lowe QC, James Findlay QC, David Matthias QC
   Leading Juniors; Ranjit Bhose, Jon Holbrook, Bryan McGuire, Catherine Rowlands, Wayne Beglan, Damien Welfare
3. Consumer
   Chambers
   Leading Silk; Anthony Scrivener QC
   Leading Juniors; Gerard Forlin, Geoffrey Stephenson, Peter Miller
4. Environment
   Chambers
   Leading Silk; Mark Lowe QC, James Findlay QC
   Leading Junior; Harriet Townsend
5. Health and Safety
   Chambers
   Leading Silk; Anthony Scrivener QC
   Leading Junior; Gerard Forlin
6. Licensing
   Chambers
   Leading Silk; James Findlay QC
   Leading Juniors; Karl Davies, Ranjit Bhose, Asitha Ranatunga
7. Planning
   Chambers
   Leading Silks; Mark Lowe QC, Anthony Dinkin QC, Morag Ellis QC, James Findlay QC, Anthony Porten QC, Stephen Sauvain QC
   Leading Juniors; Mary Cook, Michael Druce, Robin Green, Richard Ground, Melissa Murphy, Adrian Trevelyan Thomas, Ian Albutt, Michael Bedford, Johanna Boyd, Josef Cannon, Jonathan Clay, Thomas Cosgrove, Nicholas Nardecchia, Paul Shadarevian and Graham Stoker
8. Property Litigation (including agriculture and housing)
   Leading Junior: Kelvin Rutledge

07.09.2009

Planning and Local Government issues for Wales
Monday, September 07, 2009

Chambers was proud to host this essential guide to the latest Planning and Local Government legislative and policy issues affecting Local Authorities at Cardiff City Hall.

Morag Ellis QC chaired the event speakers from chambers covering:

• Habitats Directive – when this bites
  Anthony Porten QC (Click here to view his slides from the event)
• Village Greens – practical advice
  Morag Ellis QC and Rob Williams (Click here to view their slides from the event)
• Local Development Plans
  Robin Green (Click here to view his slides from the event)
• S106 agreements and viability
  Michael Bedford (Click here to view his slides from the event)
• Planning law case update
  Clare Parry (Click here to view her slides from the event)
• Age assessments – recent case law and practical implications
  Bryan McGuire (Click here to view his slides from the event)
• Procurement issues for local authorities
  James Findlay QC (Click here to view his slides from the event)
• Services to children and to those leaving care
  Catherine Rowlands (Click here to view her slides from the event)

05.09.2009

Lap Dancing: 3 foot rule upheld
Saturday, September 05, 2009

A Magistrates Court sitting in Cornwall has upheld a licence condition requiring a lap-dancing club to maintain a separation of 3 feet between performers and customers. In doing so it rejected the argument of the licensee that such conditions were defunct, unenforceable, and an illegal censorship of performance.

In 2008, Newquay residents and campaigners Tracey Earnshaw and Susan Death applied for a review of a licence held by Divas Gentlemen’s Club, complaining that it was trading on an old pub licence without any conditions relating to the adult nature of the entertainment. At the review hearing, a number of management conditions were imposed by consent, but Restormel Borough Council’s licensing sub-committee went further, imposing the 3 foot condition, which the club appealed.

At the hearing of the appeal, the club maintained that its dancers were safe due to the levels of security in the club, and that there was no evidence that the club was causing problems of crime and disorder outside the club. It did, however, offer to alter the club’s trading policy of full nude, full contact lap-dancing to a policy of no contact. It stated that to go further and impose a 3 foot rule was not only unnecessary to promote the licensing objectives but contrary to the clear advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The Council – now the unitary Cornwall Council – called Newquay’s Police Inspector, who gave evidence that the club was sited in the centre of the town’s party zone and that there were many vulnerable young women in the vicinity. He was concerned that the sexual charge experienced by the club’s customers together with the fact that they had been drinking posed a risk to females in the vicinity. Although there was no evidence that any Divas customers had committed sexual assaults, he maintained that his role, and the role of the Justices under the Licensing Act, was preventive. He gave evidence that to create a small buffer zone was to take some of the sexual heat out of the situation and so improve the protection for other users of the public realm.

The Council also argued that the imposition of a 3 foot rule was a modest response which did no more than bring the club into line with the 4 other lap dancing licences in Newquay. The club argued that this was to impose an impermissible standardised condition.

The Justices held that they had “a duty to consider the environmental context and locality of the area in which lap dancing venues exist and the commonality of their purpose in providing entertainment to a very similar group of clientele”, and that therefore the authority was correct to apply a common approach.

They also decided that the imposition of the condition would have the effect of giving dancers greater protection from the customers, and that the public safety objective was “best met by the imposition of a clearly stated safety zone between dancer and performer.”

As to the Appellant’s complaint that the condition would be unenforceable, the Justices stated that they did “not accept that it is not possible to set up a system of control which adequately monitors a 3 foot rule” and rejected as “fanciful” a contention that this would be harder to enforce than a no contact rule.

Finally, the Justices stated that they accepted that the club was well managed, but were “very concerned about the consequential effects and impact upon the immediate vicinity outside Divas and indeed the wider environment of Newquay, of intoxicated and highly sexually charged males leaving the premises.” They found a “serious risk of public disorder and public safety which needs to be addressed in a proactive manner”, finding a condition creating a physical space between dancers performing explicit dance routines and patrons … a sensible approach to securing” the crime prevention objective.

The Justices awarded the Council its costs of £14,000.

The Council was represented by Philip Kolvin QC.

The club was represented by Julian Skeens of Jeffrey Green & Russell.