Agenda item

The sub-committee considered the report which sought determination of an application for a new Premises Licence under s17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Wetherspoons, 110 High Street, Midsomer Norton, BA3 2DA

Those present for the applicant:-

Nigel Connor – Solicitor for the applicant

Paul Dixey – J D Wetherspoon

Those from Responsible Authorities:-

Martin Purchase – Police Licensing Officer

Sgt Geoffrey Cannon - Police

Katherine Jones – Environmental Health Officer (‘EHO’)

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and outlined the application for a new Premises License for the Sale of Alcohol and the provision of Late Night Refreshment at Wetherspoons, Midsomer Norton. Representations had been received from Responsible Authorities; namely Environmental Protection and the Police. The Senior Public Protection Officer said conditions had been agreed between the applicant and the police, with a slight modification around door staff. These conditions had been circulated to all parties yesterday. A Local resident Mr Mark Ashman had submitted a representation and whilst Mr Ashman was unable to attend the Sub-Committee meeting, his objection was noted

Applicant

Nigel Connor put the case on behalf of the applicant. He stated the conditions offered in the schedule were standard to new premises. Mr Connor said the premises, a former Palladium Cinema, had been empty for 20 years. Planning matters were still outstanding because a bat survey was required. This needs to be made at the right time of year. Mr Connor then drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the plans for the premises. He stated the main customer area was situated on the ground floor, with the first floor comprising a smaller customer area, external area and cellar. Full CCTV was planned for all areas, including the front and back of the premises. Mr Connor estimated customer occupancy at 400, based on the fire safety risk assessment. The plan showed indicative positions for the tables and chairs. There was a disabled WC on the ground floor, with a staff changing area externally.

Mr Connor said the premises would have no music, entertainment or karaoke. It would be somewhere to go for a quiet drink or a meal. Mr Connor explained how Wetherspoons had operated since 1979, with 942 premises across UK and Ireland. He said the organisation had given greater access to families, and for food. In doing so, Mr Connor highlighted how Wetherspoons had addressed the smoking issues before the ban. He stated there was something for everyone, and not just young people. The emphasis on food before 11pm was an important feature. Mr Connor said the proportion of alcohol to food  was 50:50. As some alcohol would be consumed with food, the premises would be more than a pub. He noted that menus had been submitted to the Sub-Committee. Mr Connor saw the premises as family friendly with children be admitted whilst supervised. He said hot drinks would be popular, with an estimated 2000 teas and coffees per week. Mr Connor explained that as there was already competitive pricing, there was no need for happy hours. He described the premises as a social space, and an asset to the community, wanting to see links with organisations. In small towns there had been a demand for this sort of premises.

Mr Connor addressed the representations to the application. He acknowledged that the Police had concerns. Mr Connor had discussed conditions with Mr Purchase, and had maintained a continued dialogue. Mr Connor felt there was a strong management team, with 4 or 5 managers per premises (two operating at the weekend). Mr Dixey, the Manager, would liaise with the Regional Manager if needed. Mr Connor said the company took part in schemes such as Challenge 21. He also explained how the Manager could contact the licensing officer every month, participate with local initiatives (such as the Community Alcohol Partnership and Pubwatch), liaise with police and work in partnership with stakeholders. He further stated that he believed Mr Ashman’s representations had been addressed through the suggested conditions.

Mr Connor was aware that the size of the garden could have an adverse impact. He wanted to agree an appropriate cut-off time; potentially 23:00hrs, whereas the Environmental Health Officer suggested 21:00hrs. Mr Connor recognised the potential for the use of the external areas to have an adverse effect and suggested there would be a middle ground for the closing hour. He stated there was a need to manage the premises, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, with staff on the door and CCTV. Staff would monitor the area, with food being brought out and clearing tables. He reassured the Sub-Committee that it would not be a case of ‘out of sight – out of mind’. Mr Connor reiterated the point there would be no music, just people in the garden. Mr Connor explained the WHO guideline that night starts at 23:00hrs. He stated that staff would start clearing out the area earlier than this time anyhow. Mr Connor anticipated the area would not be full at 23:00hrs. He was concerned that at 21:00hrs where people would go, as they would not be leaving and  clearance of the area would have to start at 20:15-20:30hrs. Mr Connor said there would be operational obstacles to clearing the garden versus the impact on residents. He also raised concern about whether a condition of precluding garden use no later than 21:00hrs would preclude smokers. Mr Connor referred to the floor plan of the premises, explaining that the outside area was on two levels. He thought the Police preferred smokers in a more controlled area, so was willing to limit access to the lower area, and away from residents. Mr Connor reflected on Mr Ashman’s comments, stating the premises will not be at capacity at closure. In doing so, he reminded the sub-committee that as there was no music, people who want a more lively atmosphere will drift away at about 22:30hrs, leaving the quiet drinkers. He did not envisage that staff would be throwing people onto the street. Mr Connor understood that a local nightclub offered cheaper entry to those arriving before 23:00hrs. Those who would move on to a club would do so beforehand.

With respect to children, Mr Connor believed the premises would be family friendly. Whilst there was a school opposite, as set out in Mr Ashman’s representation, this was set back from the road. He considered it better for children to see alcohol being consumed responsibly at licensed premises with food.

The following information was given in answer to questions:

·  A condition for outside use had not yet been agreed

·  The applicant envisaged that there were ways of managing customers in the outside area (and smokers) after a given cut-off time. Mr Connor stated that a rope barrier or signage could be used. Mr Dixey said that signage could work, as could strong management and a good number of staff.  Customer education was another factor, with more attention being paid at the relevant times. Mr Dixey said with other pubs it had not taken long to train customers. Mr Connor said staff would be briefed, so that they remain compliant.

·  With respect to the issue of spiked-drinks, Mr Connor said the premises would be supervised by CCTV.

·  Both Mr Connor and Mr Dixey confirmed they had been to the site. Mr Dixey confirmed that to the rear there were fire exits, but these were alarmed. Customers can only get in the premises from the front.

·  Mr Connor gave a response to concerns that large numbers of customers would leave the premises late at night onto Midsomer Norton which is not a huge town.  He explored how Wetherspoon pubs were located in both cities and towns. He had drinkers with food in mind. He reminisced how food in pubs had previously been pickled eggs and crisps. Mr Connor felt they were better off now, with 50% food expected. This would appeal more probably to a wide range of drinkers, than younger people. Mr Connor said this would not be a drinks led premises disgorging drinkers onto the High Street.

·  Mr Connor confirmed that happy hours would not be offered. He felt the drinks promotions were competitive enough around the year, with nothing to induce drinking quickly. He noted how offers such as the ‘Curry Club’ ran all day, and offered drink in conjunction with food.

·  Mr Connor stated that in relation to the proximity to the school, there will be a range of promotional materials at the front, some towards alcohol, although the bulk will be food. He said where alcohol is advertised, there will be no press, mostly word of mouth. Mr Connor stated they did not want to glamorise, just to show a drink with a price and to promote alcohol responsibly. Children could use the premises but only with an adult. Mr Connor wants to uphold the law relating to under 18 year olds. They may see people consuming alcohol, but this will be managed with food. He felt this was quite healthy as alcohol is part of life.

·  Upon concern to managing anti-social behaviour, Mr Dixey stated that the majority of customers may visit the premises during the early weeks, and will  get used to how the premises is managed. In Wells, a similar scheme was used with no issues. Mr Connor envisaged a regular clientele, who would need to adhere to the rules. He stated customers were more transient in cities, but not here. CCTV and staff monitoring would help. If a customer was having a cigarette, they would not be inclined to stay outside all of the time.

Following discussions between the Sub-Committee, Officers and the Applicant over the status of the front aspect of the premises (showing tables and chairs); the Applicant suggested a recess to allow him to take instructions.

When the Sub-Committee reconvened, the following information was given in answer to further questions to Mr Connor

·  The floor plan of the premises indicated tables and chairs to the front . This area falls under Wetherspoon’s demise. Whilst the area had formed part of the submitted plan, alcohol would not be sold there, just consumed.

The Licensing officer clarified the position - the area was under the control of the premises licence holder, no tables and chairs permit was necessary as the area was not "Highway", and alcohol could be consumed in this area as off sales were only restricted to being in sealed containers in areas that were not under the control of the premises licence holder.  No restriction was currently in place regarding this front outside area.

Representation  – Ms Katherine Jones (EHO)

Ms Jones said there was the potential for public nuisance given the external areas, and proximity of the beer garden to residents. To control this, Ms Jones has proposed a condition of ceasing use at 21:00hrs. She felt 12 hours of use wouldn’t stop the bar operating, and would balance preventable nuisance versus the licensee’s need.  Ms Jones stated reduced hours would lead to reduced impact.

The following information was given in answer to questions:

·  Ms Jones had judged this application on its merits, rather than factors relating to other premises. She did not have information about restrictions to other licensed premises on Midsomer Norton High Street in any case.

·  Further to ‘smoke-free’ legislation, customers and staff need to have a suitable area to smoke. She said a condition could be considered about a designated area, together with a management plan.

For completeness, the Senior Public Protection Officer gave the Sub-Committee a brief overview of the conditions pertaining to external use of licensed premises in the locality.

Representation  – Mr Martin Purchase (Police)

Mr Purchase said he had negotiated with Mr Connor of Wetherspoons; and the resulting conditions were before the Sub-Committee.

The Responsible Authorities did not want to sum up but the Applicant did. Mr Connor said he would limit his comments to disputed areas.  He stated there would be measures to control the outside area. Plans had been given to the Sub-Committee. Mr Connor remarked how proposed time restrictions on this premises were much earlier than other licensed premises. He did not know how the premises would actually trade. The outside area will be bounded by a fence. Mr Connor said  that this will help with acoustic elements of outside consumption. The licence, he said, was not set in stone. If there were complaints, there were remedies available under legislation. Mr Connor recapped the opportunity to use outer areas after 21:00hrs. Whilst he accepted the front may be treated slightly differently, Mr Connor said the Sub-Committee may want to consider similar conditions at the front and back of the premises.

The Senior Public Protection Officer, Public Protection Team Leader and public withdrew from the meeting for Members to consider the application.

When the Sub-Committee reconvened, it was

RESOLVED that the application for a new Premises Licence at Wetherspoons, 110 High Street, Midsomer Norton, BA3 2DA be granted subject to conditions agreed between the applicant and the Police:

·  Customers shall not take open vessels from the premises except for the purposes of consumption in any external area under the control of the premises licence holder

·  There shall be no new entry to the premises after 00:30

·  The premises licence holder will risk assess the requirements for door supervisors at such times and in such numbers as required by the risk assessment.  Any requirements of the Police and the Licensing Authority will be considered in the risk assessment process.

 and those set out in the operating schedule. Members added conditions around use of external areas and access (see below).

Reasons

Members have today determined an application for a new premises licence for JD Wetherspoons Midsomer Norton. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on the information put before them.

Members were careful to take account of the relevant written and oral representations and were careful to balance their competing interests. Members were however careful to disregard irrelevant matters.

On hearing the parties Members granted the application subject to conditions forward by the Police, agreed by the applicant and as set out in the operating schedule.

Whilst noting JD Wetherspoon are considered a responsible alcohol retailer Members took account of the concerns of the interested party, responsible authorities and recognise the hard work of the Community Alcohol Partnership in reducing crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in the town. Members therefore added the following conditions:

·  There shall be no entry to the premises through the rear garden and no exit from the rear garden save in emergency.

·  The external areas within the control of the premises shall only be used for the consumption of alcohol between the hours of 09:00 and 22:00 and thereafter for smokers only within the designated smoking area.

These additional conditions are considered appropriate and proportionate to ensure the Community Alcohol Partnership work is not undermined and the licensing objectives are furthered.

Authority is delegated to the Licensing Officer to issue the licence.