A social club will be unable to relaunch after Brighton and Hove City Council turned down an application for a club premises certificate.
A panel of three councillors did not feel that enough thought had gone into the application which would allow the sale of alcohol at the Valley Social Centre, in Whitehawk Way, Brighton.
The three councillors – Andrei Czolak, Julie Cattell and Paul Nann – heard the concerns of three of the six neighbours who objected and who shared their worries about anti-social behaviour and the effects on children.
Valley Social Centre trustee Alan Barnett said that the club would not be open seven days a week but would have a men’s darts club on Tuesday evenings and potentially a women’s darts club.
Otherwise, the venue would open for the general membership on Friday and Saturday evenings and on Sunday afternoons.
At the licensing panel hearing on Tuesday 22 September, Mr Barnett offered earlier closing times and further limitations on when children and teenagers would have to leave the premises.
The panel recognised the desire to create a friendly and welcoming social space but did not have confidence that the club would manage to follow the police conditions and exercise control of the premises.
The council said in its decision letter: “The panel considers that the residents have raised legitimate concerns relating to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.
“This is a challenging area and there is anecdotal evidence that when the club previously sold alcohol prior to 2012 there were issues with noise and disturbance.
“However, as stated the panel does recognise the applicant’s sincere aims and intention to create a friendly and welcoming social space.
“It considers that, with further thought and consultation with local residents and possibly the ward councillors, a more thought-through application, especially as to times and activities including the admission of children, could be submitted and would be more likely to succeed.”
The Valley Social Centre does have the right to appeal.
A petition – Reopen the Valley Social members club in Whitehawk – was started on the Change.org website on Wednesday (29 September). It had almost 150 signatures at the time of going to press.
The residents of Whitehawk have fought for 5/6 years to get it back to what the locals have have always wanted.
Let’s hope they can do a lot with it,it’s what the Local community need to be honest
I watched the full representations against, project fear, some of the incidents raised were factually incorrect.
There is literally a community pub run in bevendean, which has been recognised widely and applauded by royals, Yet apparently not allowed in Whitehawk. Where have we heard this before. And they keep voting labour.
The mind boggles, let’s just continue to let people drink at home in isolation and wonder what are the issues, when there is nothing, speaking for all parts of the community, there is literally nothing really. They own this, why more barriers… it’s just wrong really they have these private members clubs in affluent areas.
They can do so many events which bring hope again. Not project fear by yes residents but not part of the history of the community or even lived there when there was a thriving community and social club.
Maybe they needed a no to rally support but we have to move with the times they own this facility, residents are trustees, and it’s one of the best I feel represented by locals set up there now.
I predicted when I saw the councillors making the decision the outcome, and feel sad for the community overwhelmingly, does happiness of the many not allow for some happy residents going home at night, being a little merry,
I live in city centre, it’s part and parcel here, we all manage to sleep. NIMBYSM at its worst.
Best wishes, to your campaign
When there are more incidences of rowdiness, drunkenness and antisocial behaviour in the City centre, it seems illogical to refuse this application. It is a members club not a public bar and the police have requested conditions. What is the reasoning or is the (lack of) experience of the panel to blame?