Agenda item

Applicant: Bath Rugby Football Club, represented by Mark Edwards (proposed Designated Premises Supervisor)

Other Person: Susan Traill

Witnesses for the Other Person: Alex Schlesinger and David Dunlop

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Public Protection Officer summarised the report and invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Mr Edwards stated the case for the applicant. He explained that he was currently the Chairman of Bath RFC, which was the amateur, not the professional Bath club. Bath RFC had returned to Lambridge after a 10-year absence, during which the Lambridge ground had been used exclusively for training for the professional club. He thought that the Lambridge club ground was probably the only rugby club ground in the country without a bar. All the other grounds he visited were able to offer hospitality and the club wanted to be able to do that at Lambridge. The alternative of having a club licence had been discussed with the Police, but the difficulties of administering it had been pointed out. As there was no admission charge, it would be difficult to distinguish members from non-members; it therefore appeared simpler to have a premises licence. There was no intention of running a pub, or of using all the hours applied for. The application stated how the club intended to further the licensing objectives. He noted that there was a great deal of comment in the representations about the possibilities of drug sales and use at the premises, but the fact was that drugs were simply not tolerated in rugby. Most members of the club were aged 7-18, and adult members were mostly the parents of younger members. The club provided a well-ordered family environment. Strict controls were in place. Attendances were in the low 100s, not in the 1000s. A starting hour of 06.00 had been applied for because international matches in the southern hemisphere were often broadcast at this time, and the club would like to be able to provide hospitality for such events, without having to keep applying for Temporary Event Notices (TENs).

In response to questions from Members Mr Edwards stated:

• 3 TENs had been applied for in the past 6 months; in a normal season he expected that there would be a need for about 4 TENs a week

• full breakfast was available at early-morning events

• extensive discussions had taken place with the Police about the appropriate hours to be applied for; a high degree of flexibility was required because some internationals were retimed at short notice, which mean that it might not be possible to provide hospitality for a particular event at the club; it was also planned to have a regular Friday event at the club; the hours applied for would give the maximum flexibility, but there was absolutely no wish to serve alcohol from 06.00 to 23.00 every day

Ms Traill asked why off-sales had been applied for. Mr Edwards explained that this was simply to allow customers to take drinks to parts of the premises that were outside of the licensed area, such as the side of the pitch and the car park. Ms Trail asked how people who wandered into the ground or were under the influence of alcohol would be dealt with. Mr Edwards replied that in a club of 400 members a stranger would be noticed very quickly and that people who were acting in an unacceptable manner would be shown the door. He said that the club was a private premises, not a public park. No problems had been experienced at events for which TENs had been obtained. The Principal Solicitor clarified that the club and grounds were private premises, and in any event it was an offence to sell alcohol to intoxicated people.

Ms Traill stated her case. She said she lived quite close to the ground and that her concerns were not based on any problems that were currently occurring. She was objecting to such a wide-ranging licence, which could be passed on to another licence holder in the future. She wondered why the club was applying to sell alcohol for 18 hours a day if they did not intend to do this. The fact that the licence applied for did not require membership changed the situation and the outlook for the future. People who had been drinking could sometimes be very threatening. Residents of Grosvenor Place were already suffering from litter and broken glass left by drinkers. She was concerned about increased traffic congestion, which, among other things, would cause problems for the emergency services. There was a bus stop directly opposite the ground at which there were sometimes large numbers of children, who could be drawn by the excitement surrounding events at the club and cross a very busy road. She was able to hear the noise from events in her flat and at her allotment. She didn’t mind the occasional noise late at night, even though it kept her awake, but it would unbearable if it happened every day. She was concerned about the possibility of drugs at the club. She felt the licence was quite unsuitable for the nature of the premises. She called her two witnesses.

Alex Schlesinger said that the licence applied allowed the premises to do practically anything, facilitating the creation of a social as well as sporting venue. This was not appropriate in a residential district and near a very busy road. The district was already suffering the impact of alcohol-related problems, particularly on young people. A local convenience store had had to be warned about selling alcohol to young people. Most users of the club would arrive by car, exacerbating traffic problems. It was perverse that, at a time when alcohol misuse was a national concern, a sports club should be seeking a licence to sell alcohol 18 hours a day.

David Dunlop said that it had been stated that the club grounds were private land. Yet the notice advertising the licence application had been fixed within the club grounds; it should have been fixed to the gate, where it would have been more accessible. No notice had been given to residents about the application. In the past the Rugby Club and communicated with residents about developments; their failure to do so on this occasion had naturally aroused suspicions. Residents had been alarmed when they had seen the hours applied for, and the fact that it was not a club licence. The applicants had consulted the Police, but they should have consulted local residents as well. There was a possibility of noise pollution from the premises. There was a risk that intoxicated people could fall in the river. He noted that the proposed Dyson premises had been prohibited from admitting underage people because the land was subject to flooding; the same was the case here. There had been two drug and alcohol-related deaths in London Road in the past two years. It was somewhat naïve of Mr Edwards to say that there was a strict ban on drugs at the club because some Bath Rugby professional players had been charged with drug offences and it was impossible to control what five hundred people brought into the ground.

The Chair asked the Public Protection Officer to comment on the location of the notices advertising the application. She replied that they were clearly visible from the highway and the application had been advertised in accordance with the regulations.

In reply to questions from Members Ms Traill stated:

• the previous club licence had not resulted in problems for residents; the club and its members were good neighbours

• drug problems would be more likely to arise from outsiders than club members

• the ground was easily accessible to the public; people walked their dogs there

The Principal Solicitor advised that highways issues, the safety of people away from the premises, planning matters and what may or may not happen to any licence granted in the future were not relevant considerations under the Licensing Act.

In her summing up Ms Traill said that the hours applied for were too long and posed a risk to residents if the premises changed hands. She thought off-sales were unnecessary.

The Chair asked the Public Protection Officer to comment on the application for off sales. The Public Protection Officer explained that the area for which a licence was sought was less than the total area of the club grounds. If there were no provision for sales for consumption off the licensed premises, it would not be possible for people to take drinks to areas of the premises outside the licensed area. She noted that the applicant had offered a condition about the use of plastic glasses only in the outside area.

Mr Edwards summed up. He said there was no intention to operate an off-sales business. The only purpose of the off-sales provision was to allow people to take drinks to areas outside the licensed area, such as the car park. He acknowledged that there was the potential for non-members to enter the premises, but, he submitted, strict controls would be in place. He did not believe that there would be a significant increase in the number of coaches and cars coming to the premises. The purpose of applying for the hours of 06.00 till 23.00 was to provide flexibility and obviate the need for repeated applications for Temporary Event Notices.

Following an adjournment, the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application as applied for.

Reasons

Members have today determined an application for a new premises licence at Bath Rugby Football Club, Lambridge, Bath. 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 information before them. Members were careful to disregard representations relating to public safety of those not on the premises, traffic and environmental issues, planning and did not speculate on what may or may not happen in the future should a licence be granted. 

In reaching a decision Members were careful to take account of all the relevant oral and written representations and balanced the competing interests of the applicant and the interested party.

The applicant stated the club had been used for over 50 years and only in its recent history as a training ground for the professional club. The amateur club had now returned to the site and was hosting matches although mostly as a youth based club. However it would like to provide the usual facilities associated with a rugby club so people could have the option of a drink during or after matches. It was not the case that the application would lead to binge drinking as the club is family orientated and would be for the use of club members, visitors and guests rather than a public house. It was felt that given the club’s location and the scope of the application it was unlikely to have an effect on residents and very unlikely that there would be any drugs on the premises. It was said that the club were operating using TENs at present which although proving successful were limited in number and did not give the club the flexibility of a licence going forward.

The interested party accepted the club and its membership are very good neighbours. However, they feared the scope of the application was too wide and could be transferred to someone not as family orientated leading to an increase in public nuisance and disorder in the form of drunkenness, noise and disagreements between users of the premises and drug dealing. It was further stated that there would be an increase in traffic risks, a risk of people falling in the river and noise from late night events particularly if held in a marquee. It was therefore an unsuitable site for such activities.

Members note the police had not objected to the application and had assisted the club in formulating this application. In all the circumstances Members found there was nothing in the application leading them to think there would be a detrimental effect on the licensing objectives and therefore grant the application with conditions consistent with the operating schedule. Authority was therefore delegated to the Licensing Officer to issue the licence.