Agenda item

In attendance – Matthew Phipps (TLT Solicitor) accompanied by Kyle Miller and Debbie Windybank from Greene King.

It was confirmed that two lots of additional information had been submitted to all parties before the meeting.

The Licensing Officer presented the report for consideration of a variation of the premises licence for Loch Fyne.

Matthew Phipps (Solicitor) explained that the premises had been shut for two years with the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns and the offer had evolved over that time but there would be no change to the hours or the activity.  The variations include a reconfiguration of the layout, creating storage, providing coverage to the outside terrace and to remove archaic conditions.  He confirmed that there were no objections from the responsible authorities.  The one objector expressed concern that the applicant’s proposals could undermine the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objectives.  However, he explained that the objection did not outline anything specific to this premises.  It also referred to other residents being affected, however, there were no other objections.

He outlined additional conditions that could be considered appropriate:

·  Membership of Nightwatch (or a similar organisation where it exists)

·  Premises laid out to tables and chairs

·  Having an incident book/log

·  Notices displayed reminding customers to respect the neighbours

·  Challenge 21

·  Training for all staff

·  A refusal log/register

Councillor questions followed and answers were as follows:

·  There was no representation from responsible authorities and no issues in relation to Challenge 21 and age being a concern at the premises

·  The Licensing Officer confirmed a few changes appropriate for the additional conditions, that Challenge 21 was more usually a concern in relation to nightclubs, any alcohol sold off-premises to be in sealed containers, the licence holder to supervise the incident register, the signage in respect of consideration for neighbours to be by the exits and be an appropriate size, photo ID with suitable signage, staff training to be commensurate with their duties

·  Important to be consistent with other licensed premises in the vicinity, though each application should be considered on its merits

·  There were no representations in respect of children and any significant risk or harm.

The meeting was adjourned for Members to consider their decision and reasons and it was RESOLVED

Decision and reasons

Members have determined an application to vary a Premises Licence at Loch Fyne Restaurant, 24 Milsom Street, Bath, BA1 1DG. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Policy which includes the Cumulative Impact Policy, Human Rights Act 1998 and case law.

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 on the information before them. Members reminded themselves that each application must be considered on its own merits.

The proposed premises falls within BANES’ Cumulative Impact Area which means that pursuant to the Council’s policy there is a rebuttable presumption that for variations relating to “on trade”, premises will be refused if relevant representations are received, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the operation of the premises will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced. “On trade” means the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Members noted that the applicant had submitted 2 lots of additional information prior to the hearing, comprising, a 20-page brochure, wine, food and cocktail menus and a 4-page document illustrating how these menus will be presented.

Matthew Phipps, solicitor for the applicant, addressed Members in oral representations and indicated that there is no proposed change in licensable activities or timings. He explained to Members that the existing bar is towards the front of the premises and the proposed bar will be further back to allow a bigger space, but this is not an attempt to introduce vertical drinking and the premises will remain a seated premises laid out to table and chairs. Mr Phipps indicated to Members that the proposed removal of the waiter/waitress condition was not to suggest that this service will not be available at all times, it was to allow a customer to go to the bar if they want. Food will be available at pretty much all trading times, but the applicant wants to allow some wind down time, without being in breach of the current condition for substantial food to be available during all trading hours. Mr Phipps noted that Members will wish to ensure residents are not disturbed by the operation of the premises and the applicant wants to ensure that guests are not disturbed given that they are the closest residents of the operation. Mr Phipps highlighted to Members that there were no representations from Responsible Authorities and in addressing Members on the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy, he submitted that the proposal would not undermine the Licensing Objectives at all, nor would it add to the Cumulative Impact being experienced.

In addressing the live representation from Mr Bedding, Mr Phipps respectfully indicated that the objectors’ concerns seem to relate to late night bars and poor behaviour in George Street and do not go to the application and premises. Mr Phipps noted that the objector had raised no concerns related to Protection of Children from Harm or Public Safety.

Mr Phipps indicated to Members that there were a number of additional conditions that the applicant was prepared to offer, to address any residual concerns, if Members consider them to be appropriate and proportionate.

There was a written representation of objection from Mr William Bedding who is a resident that lives one street away from the premises. He objected to the application on the basis of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objectives. Mr Bedding’s concerns related to the number of people drinking to excess in the area of George Street, which he said leads to a higher likelihood of disorder within any establishment. He described frequent fights and shouting in this area. In terms of public nuisance, he referred to crowding in the area of George Street, not dispersing, arguing and cheering into the early hours of the morning. Mr Bedding acknowledged that the applicant cannot be held responsible for what happens on the street outside but expressed concern that this premises, being in close proximity to George Street, would create noise and disturbance.

Mr Bedding indicated that the notice of the application was not outside of the building for 28 consecutive days however, the licensing officer Geoff Cannon indicated that Licensing had looked into this matter and were satisfied that the requirements of the legislation had been complied with and the notice was on display for the requisite period. 

Members noted that this application must be considered on its own merits, and that they have regard to evidence related to these premises.

Members were careful to take account of the relevant written and oral representations both for and against the application and balanced their competing interests.

Members noted that there had been no valid representations from Responsible Authorities which includes the police, Highways, Planning, Environmental Protection and the licensing authority.

Members noted that there were no proposed changes to the licensable activities nor timings and they were satisfied that the operation of the premises will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.

Members determined that the conditions that the applicant seeks to remove from the licence are either archaic or covered by alternative conditions pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003 and therefore, it is no longer appropriate or proportionate for them to remain on the licence. Members were satisfied however that the conditions offered by the applicant in oral submissions were appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives of Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance.

Authority is therefore delegated to the licensing officer to issue the licence as applied for subject to the following additional conditions offered or agreed to by the applicant:

·  All alcohol sold for consumption off the premises shall be supplied in sealed containers.

·  The Premises Licence Holder shall require the Designated Premises Supervisor or in his/her absence other responsible person to keep an incident/refusal register in which full details of incidents are recorded. The register is to be kept on the premises at all times and shall be produced to an authorised officer of the police or licensing authority when requested.

·  Signage requesting patrons to be considerate to neighbours should be conspicuously displayed inside and outside entrances/exits.

·  A Challenge 21 proof of age scheme shall be adopted, implemented and advertised at any premises. An accepted form of photographic identification shall be requested before any alcohol is sold to any person who appears to be under 21 years of age. Acceptable proof of age shall include identification bearing the customers photograph, date of birth and integral holographic mark or security measure. Suitable means of identification would include PASS approved proof of age card, photo card driving licence and passport.

·  Staff training. All staff to be trained in the prevention of underage sales to a level commensurate with their duties. The training should be clearly documented and signed and dated by both the trainer and the member of staff receiving it. The documentation shall be available for inspection on request by an authorised officer of the licensing authority or police.

·  Publicity materials notifying customers of the operation of Challenge 21 scheme shall be displayed at the premises including a Challenge 21 sign which may align with the premises’ corporate branding, at the entrance to the premises and where practicable at each point of sale.