Agenda item

Applicant: Beckford Bottle Shop Ltd, represented by Daniel Brod and Charlie Luxton (partners)

Other Persons: Kim Green, Elizabeth Lewrey and David Daniels

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Public Protection Officer presented the report. Members noted that the premises was situated in the Cumulative Impact Area. Ten representations had been received from Other Persons, relating to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. Eighteen representations in support of the application had been received.

Mr Brod stated the case for the applicant. He described the nature of the business and efforts made to engage with local residents. He said that he considered operating in Bath to be a privilege. The premises were situated near to the Assembly Rooms and the landmark Beckford Tower. He had met with residents to try to allay their fears. He noted that more expressions of support for the application had been received than objections. He had limited the hours of the premises. He would also restrict any table and chairs application to a 21:00 terminal hour. He submitted that the nature of the business was inherently up-market and would be unlikely to attract binge drinkers. He noted that there were already fourteen licensed premises in the vicinity, but did not believe that adding a fifteenth would materially worsen problems; in fact he believed that the Beckford Bottle Shop would improve the situation for residents by setting a higher standard. His company had an unblemished record of running their other premises.

Mr Brod was questioned by Members and by Other Persons.

Other Persons stated their cases.

Mr Green said that he lived directly opposite the premises. He felt there were already too many licensed premises in a residential area. There were disabled and vulnerable people living nearby. There was a great deal of noise nuisance and residents were often woken at night. Smokers outside premises caused noise nuisance. He considered that ‘shop’ was not an accurate description of the nature of the business to be carried out at the premises. He thought the hours of the premises were too long. He believed that the application, if granted, would add to the cumulative impact.

Mrs Lewrey said that residents already suffered disturbance cause by patrons of other licensed premises in the area.

Mr Daniels said that the main issue was the noise and disturbance suffered by residents in the area. He believed that an additional drinking establishment was bound to add to this, however well-intentioned the proprietors might be. Twice in the recent past people incapacitated through excessive drinking had had to be taken away by paramedics. He submitted that there should be extreme caution about adding to the number of drinking establishments.

Mr Brod summed up for the applicant. He acknowledged that there were existing problems in the area associated with licensed premises. However, he believed that this application was an up-market proposition akin to a European style of drinking, and he believed it would improve standards in the area.

Following an adjournment the Sub-Committee RESOLVED to grant the application, subject to the mandatory conditions and conditions consistent with the operating schedule. Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the licence.

Reasons

Members have had to determine an application for a new Premises Licence at 5-8 Savile Row, Lansdown, Bath BA1 2QP. 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 they must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on the information put before them. Members noted that each application is considered on its own merits.

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

The Applicant

The applicant said the bottle shop concept is a spin off from our pubs which are recognised as some of the best in the south west. He said they will showcase carefully selected wine and from across the region. The applicant stated that they are privileged to be a part of Bath and want to integrate with the community. They recognised there was some concern about the premises and had met with local resident to try and allay their fears. The applicant said we are not a drinking establishment and are offering an up market premises offering wine tastings with food and wine education opportunities in the basement. He said we do not wish to attract binge drinkers, will discourage these types of customers and will not be a late night venue. It was further added that whilst there are 14 other licensed premises in the area he felt that adding another would not add to the concerns because we are experienced operators and will manage the premises accordingly. Finally he said we have an unblemished track record and intend to be an asset to Bath.

The Interested Parties

The interested parties against the applicant stated the premises were in a predominantly residential area although it was accepted there were already a number of licensed premise within it. They believed that given the experience they have with currently licensed premises granting this application would give rise to public nuisance from noise leading to more disturbed sleep. It was further stated that the premises would attract drunken revellers already in the area and this would result in more crime and disorder with people urinating in the street, sleeping in doorways and leaving a mess for residents to clean up.

Whilst it was accepted that no complaints had been made to the council in the past, an enquiry had been made for a review of a premises in the locality. They did not accepted that the addition of one more premises would not make a difference.

There was written interested party support for the application. These generally welcomed seeing a disused premises brought back to life, regenerating the area and adding to its charm and history of independents. It was further stated that the applicant also operates a number of similar premises across the district and this application is welcomed in this location. 

Members

In reaching their decision Members noted that in relation to paragraph 9.42 of the Statutory Guidance their determination should be evidence-based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what is intended to be achieved. Members were careful not disregard representations that did not relate to the licencing objectives, for example, parking, need, tables and chairs and traffic issues.

Members carefully considered the representations made on behalf of the Interested Parties both for and against and the Applicant and noted there were no representations from a Responsible Authority.

Members noted that the Cumulative Impact Policy relates to the ‘on trade’ sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. On balance members found the proposal would not result in a vertical drinking establishment but rather was reasonable and low key in its extent being predominantly off sales with tasting/education/and food as an additional feature. Further, members were satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that taking into account all the relevant circumstances including the proposed conditions on the operating schedule and the business model that the premises and timings would not add significantly to the cumulative impact experienced.

Members further considered that any effect on the licensing objectives would be addressed by the conditions consistent with the proposed operating schedule which they found to be appropriate and proportionate.

Accordingly, members resolved to approve the application subject to the mandatory conditions and conditions consistent with the operating schedule.

Authority was delegated to the Public Protection Officer to issue the licence