Portsmouth City Borough Council
Councillors:
42
Wards:
14
Committees:
37
Meetings (2026):
11
Meetings (2025):
117
Meeting
Licensing Sub-Committee - Portsmouth City
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 27th May 2025
11:00 AM
Tuesday, 27th May 2025
11:00 AM
End:
Tuesday, 27th May 2025
3:00 PM
Tuesday, 27th May 2025
3:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
27 May 2025
27 May 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Council Chamber - The Guildhall, Portsmouth
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Planning Policy & City Development
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Environmental Services
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Leisure & Sport
Committee Member
Deputy Lord Mayor
Committee Member
Group Leader
Committee Member
Deputy Group Leader
Agenda
1
Appointment of Chair
Minutes
Councillor George Madgwick was duly appointed as Chair for this meeting.
2
Declaration of interests
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest.
3
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009) Licensing of Sex Establishments - Sexual Entertainment Venues Application for the renewal of a licence - Wellhot Ltd - Elegance 1 Granada Road Southsea PO4 0RD
Purpose of report
The purpose of this report is for the Committee to determine an application for
the renewal of a sexual entertainment venue licence in respect of the premises situated at 1 Granada Road, Southsea, PO4 0RD and known as Elegance. The application has been submitted by Wellhot Ltd. The application has been referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee due to an objection being made.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the Sub-Committee determine the application for the renewal of
a sexual entertainment venue in respect of the premises situated at
1 Granada Road Southsea Portsmouth PO4 0RD and known as
Elegance; and
(b) in determining this application, the Sub-Committee shall have
regard to paragraph 7.10a of its statement of licensing policy as set
out below:
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 7.10 (relating to the
numerical control on the number of sex establishments in a
particular locality), the presumption to refuse shall not apply to:
• the renewal, transfer or variation of an existing sex
establishment licence; and
(c) that the Sub-Committee has considered its statutory duty in
accordance with the Equality Act when determining this
application.
The purpose of this report is for the Committee to determine an application for
the renewal of a sexual entertainment venue licence in respect of the premises situated at 1 Granada Road, Southsea, PO4 0RD and known as Elegance. The application has been submitted by Wellhot Ltd. The application has been referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee due to an objection being made.
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the Sub-Committee determine the application for the renewal of
a sexual entertainment venue in respect of the premises situated at
1 Granada Road Southsea Portsmouth PO4 0RD and known as
Elegance; and
(b) in determining this application, the Sub-Committee shall have
regard to paragraph 7.10a of its statement of licensing policy as set
out below:
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 7.10 (relating to the
numerical control on the number of sex establishments in a
particular locality), the presumption to refuse shall not apply to:
• the renewal, transfer or variation of an existing sex
establishment licence; and
(c) that the Sub-Committee has considered its statutory duty in
accordance with the Equality Act when determining this
application.
Attachments:
- Document LSC Report for renewal of SEV - Elegance 1 Granada Road - May 2025 - no signature 15 May 2025
- Document Elegance - Appendix A - Redacted 15 May 2025
Minutes
Licensing Authority's case
Nickii Humphreys, Licensing Manager, introduced her report. The public notice had been printed on blue paper and the Licensing Authority's email address was also in blue but the notice had been replaced so that the email address was easier to see. The Licensing Manager was satisfied that the application had been advertised in the correct manner. There were no objections from other authorities.
There had been a number of emails between the objector and the licensing authority. A Licensing Officer had liaised with them to see if they were happy with the arrangements for managing the venue but they wanted to maintain their objection.
The Sub-Committee had no statutory grounds for refusing the application so could only focus on discretionary ones. The Public Sector Equality Duty and the Human Rights Act had been carefully considered when writing the report.
The Legal Advisor pointed out a minor typo. Paragraph 2c) should say "consider" not "have considered" and the font should match sections 2a) and 2b). Everyone agreed to these amendments.
Questions from the applicant
There were no questions from the applicant for the Licensing Manager.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, the Licensing Manager clarified that the application was to renew the licence as it was only valid for 12 months and had to be renewed every 12 months. No other changes were made to the current licence.
Applicant's case
Mr Jaspal Olja said he had operated the venue since 2000 without any objections. The authorities had had nothing untoward to say about the venue. It had been closed during the Covid pandemic and because of staffing issues but had re-opened the previous week. The police were happy with it so there was no reason why the application could not be approved.
Questions from the Licensing Officer
There were no questions from the Licensing Manager for the applicant.
Questions from members
There were no questions from members for the applicant.
Summing up
Neither the Licensing Manager nor the applicant had anything else to add.
The Sub-Committee went into exempt session at 11.10 am to determine the application. The Chair reminded those present that they must not discuss the application with members of the Sub-Committee outside the meeting room during the break for deliberation.
The Sub-Committee reconvened at 11.42 pm. The Chair read out the decision.
The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the application, all of the representations - both written and oral and paid due regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Home Office Guidance, the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010.
It was noted that objections raised, amongst other points set out in full in the report, the following issues:
- Advertisement of the application
- Stripping at such venues amounts to "prostitution" and all such clubs "should be made illegal"
- The dancers' and clients' use of illegal drugs
- Residential area with children passing, should not have club music noise, strippers, drunks or drug users convening and causing trouble
- The premises has been closed for 6 years and should remain closed.
The Sub-Committee notes the policy adopted by the authority in relation to sex establishment venues generally but also specifically in relation to the numerical control imposed. However, that control is not applicable to premises with existing licences.
The Sub-Committee is free, however, to determine the appropriate number of such establishments in a particular locality in relation to any particular application.
The Sub-Committee accepted advice that such premises are lawful and consideration of whether such establishments ought to exist is not part of the decision to be made. It is clear that moral objections, generally, cannot be taken into consideration.
The decision to be made (accepting the report and indication from the licensing manager that the statutory grounds of refusal do not apply in this case) is whether it remains appropriate for the premises to remain licensed in this locality. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the police had not raised any objection and no evidence presented (particularly in relation to drug use by performers and customers) related directly to the premises in question.
Accordingly and in light of all the evidence it has heard, the Sub-Committee has determined that the licence shall be renewed.
REASONS
The Sub-Committee heard from the licensing manager that the application had been appropriately advertised.
All the potential grounds for refusal both statutory and discretionary were considered, as set out in the report with none of the labelled statutory grounds applying to this case. The appropriate number of sex establishments for this particular locality is not considered to be exceeded. Despite the assertion by the objector that this is a residential area there were no reasons sufficient to warrant a refusal based upon the character of the locality, the use to which any premises in the locality are put or the layout, character or condition of the premises.
In considering the location and residential nature, the Sub-Committee was persuaded by the fact that the premises confirmed it had operated at this location since 2000 (25 years) and the police were happy with its operation. The premises had closed due to COVID and has reopened last week and is running without issue.
Whilst the Sub Committee is perfectly entitled to decide the area is no longer appropriate, it was the Sub Committee's view that the area had not materially changed since last considered. The appearance of the premises is not, in the view of the Sub Committee, likely to inappropriately attract the attention to passers-by.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the impact of the equality duty and whether any particular discrimination against any protected group or characteristic would result from the decision. This had to be balanced against the right to operate a lawful business, when licensed. The Sub-Committee found there was insufficient direct evidence of concern or actual discrimination. Weight was attached to the lack of police representation. The standard conditions also set out considerable regulation of performers' and customers' conduct - particularly through codes of conduct.
Nickii Humphreys, Licensing Manager, introduced her report. The public notice had been printed on blue paper and the Licensing Authority's email address was also in blue but the notice had been replaced so that the email address was easier to see. The Licensing Manager was satisfied that the application had been advertised in the correct manner. There were no objections from other authorities.
There had been a number of emails between the objector and the licensing authority. A Licensing Officer had liaised with them to see if they were happy with the arrangements for managing the venue but they wanted to maintain their objection.
The Sub-Committee had no statutory grounds for refusing the application so could only focus on discretionary ones. The Public Sector Equality Duty and the Human Rights Act had been carefully considered when writing the report.
The Legal Advisor pointed out a minor typo. Paragraph 2c) should say "consider" not "have considered" and the font should match sections 2a) and 2b). Everyone agreed to these amendments.
Questions from the applicant
There were no questions from the applicant for the Licensing Manager.
Questions from members
In response to questions from members, the Licensing Manager clarified that the application was to renew the licence as it was only valid for 12 months and had to be renewed every 12 months. No other changes were made to the current licence.
Applicant's case
Mr Jaspal Olja said he had operated the venue since 2000 without any objections. The authorities had had nothing untoward to say about the venue. It had been closed during the Covid pandemic and because of staffing issues but had re-opened the previous week. The police were happy with it so there was no reason why the application could not be approved.
Questions from the Licensing Officer
There were no questions from the Licensing Manager for the applicant.
Questions from members
There were no questions from members for the applicant.
Summing up
Neither the Licensing Manager nor the applicant had anything else to add.
The Sub-Committee went into exempt session at 11.10 am to determine the application. The Chair reminded those present that they must not discuss the application with members of the Sub-Committee outside the meeting room during the break for deliberation.
The Sub-Committee reconvened at 11.42 pm. The Chair read out the decision.
The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the application, all of the representations - both written and oral and paid due regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Home Office Guidance, the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010.
It was noted that objections raised, amongst other points set out in full in the report, the following issues:
- Advertisement of the application
- Stripping at such venues amounts to "prostitution" and all such clubs "should be made illegal"
- The dancers' and clients' use of illegal drugs
- Residential area with children passing, should not have club music noise, strippers, drunks or drug users convening and causing trouble
- The premises has been closed for 6 years and should remain closed.
The Sub-Committee notes the policy adopted by the authority in relation to sex establishment venues generally but also specifically in relation to the numerical control imposed. However, that control is not applicable to premises with existing licences.
The Sub-Committee is free, however, to determine the appropriate number of such establishments in a particular locality in relation to any particular application.
The Sub-Committee accepted advice that such premises are lawful and consideration of whether such establishments ought to exist is not part of the decision to be made. It is clear that moral objections, generally, cannot be taken into consideration.
The decision to be made (accepting the report and indication from the licensing manager that the statutory grounds of refusal do not apply in this case) is whether it remains appropriate for the premises to remain licensed in this locality. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the police had not raised any objection and no evidence presented (particularly in relation to drug use by performers and customers) related directly to the premises in question.
Accordingly and in light of all the evidence it has heard, the Sub-Committee has determined that the licence shall be renewed.
REASONS
The Sub-Committee heard from the licensing manager that the application had been appropriately advertised.
All the potential grounds for refusal both statutory and discretionary were considered, as set out in the report with none of the labelled statutory grounds applying to this case. The appropriate number of sex establishments for this particular locality is not considered to be exceeded. Despite the assertion by the objector that this is a residential area there were no reasons sufficient to warrant a refusal based upon the character of the locality, the use to which any premises in the locality are put or the layout, character or condition of the premises.
In considering the location and residential nature, the Sub-Committee was persuaded by the fact that the premises confirmed it had operated at this location since 2000 (25 years) and the police were happy with its operation. The premises had closed due to COVID and has reopened last week and is running without issue.
Whilst the Sub Committee is perfectly entitled to decide the area is no longer appropriate, it was the Sub Committee's view that the area had not materially changed since last considered. The appearance of the premises is not, in the view of the Sub Committee, likely to inappropriately attract the attention to passers-by.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the impact of the equality duty and whether any particular discrimination against any protected group or characteristic would result from the decision. This had to be balanced against the right to operate a lawful business, when licensed. The Sub-Committee found there was insufficient direct evidence of concern or actual discrimination. Weight was attached to the lack of police representation. The standard conditions also set out considerable regulation of performers' and customers' conduct - particularly through codes of conduct.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in