Agenda item

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub- Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine the application for a new Premises Licence for Budo Ba, 3 Argyle Street, Bathwick, Bath. BA2 4BA.

He stated that a relevant representation had been received from the owner of a flat located above the premises within the statutory period.

Terrill Wolyn, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed the application was for the Exhibition of Films (indoors), Late Night Refreshment (indoors) and the supply of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises.

In respect of the exhibition of films she said that the intention was to show Japanese films silently on screen. She added that the application does not include any request to allow live or recorded music to be played at the premises.

She explained that the concept behind the new premises had been trialled at another of the owner’s premises within the city, The Grapes in Westgate Street, and that this had not had any adverse effect on any of the licensing objectives, nor had it affected the lodgings directly above it.

She informed the Sub-Committee that BeerCraft had operated from the same premises in Argyle Street between 2017 – 2022 which included a taproom underneath the residential flat. She stated that no complaints had been made to the Licensing department regarding its use.

She said that a number of other premises in the area have either later or similar hours of operation to those that are being applied for and that the premises was not within the cumulative impact area.

She stated that there have been no objections received from the Police or any other of the Responsible Authorities and no direct objection from the tenant of the flat above the premises.

She said that it was anticipated that there would be minimal noise from customers leaving the premises and that the owner was willing to offer a further condition as follows.

·  No new customers will be allowed entrance to the premises beyond 23.30.

The Chairman asked if while the concept had been trialled at The Grapes whether films had been shown.

The applicant, Ellie Leiper replied that films had not been shown during the trial period.

The Chairman asked the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) if he could confirm the hours that the taproom at BeerCraft operated under.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that they ceased their licensable activities at 23.00 every day.

Suzanne Evans had made a relevant representation and was present to address the Sub-Committee. She informed them that she owns the first floor flat above the premises and has let it on a long-term basis for the past eight years. She said that she feared her tenant would have problems if the premises operated after 23.00.

She said that the applicant had accompanied her to a visit to the flat whilst some music was played in the premises below and informed the Sub-Committee that some of the noise was audible. She asked if a noise limiter could be put in place as part of the licence.

She stated that no additional acoustic measurements have been put in place and acknowledged that no complaints had been submitted while BeerCraft had operated within the premises. She added though that she believed that they had often closed by 21.30.

She asked whether a condition could be set as part of the licence for the number of times a year that the late licence, after 23.00, could be used.

She said that the other premises that had been referenced by the applicant’s agent were clubs that were primarily in basements that have no residents above them.

She stated that she had no doubt that the owners are responsible people, but that she wished for some controls to be in place from her perspective.

She concluded by asking the Sub-Committee to consider adding the following conditions to the licence should it be granted.

·  A limit to the number of nights per year the premises can operate after 23.00

·  No music to be played after 23.00

·  A noise limiter to be put in place on the premises

·  Grant the licence for 12 months initially to allow for a review after that period

The Chairman asked if there had been a prior agreement to only operate the premises after 23.00 six times a year.

Ellie Leiper replied that this had been an error on her part and that at the time of the conversation she had had a number of other things ongoing in her life.

The Chairman asked both parties if they had any further comments to give to the Sub-Committee regarding the application.

Ellie Leiper said that she would like the flexible option to have premises open after 23.00 to give the business a chance. She added that they have a licence to open later at her other premises, The Grapes, but said that they rarely do so.

Suzanne Evans said that from her point of view it would be welcome to have some form of control over the hours of operation. She added though that she was happy with the conversations that have been held with the applicant.

Decision and Reasons

Members have determined an application for a new Premises Licence at Budo Ba, 3 Argyle Street, Bathwick, Bath. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s 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.

Members had regard to 2 lots of additional information provided by the objector which comprised a chain of e-mails between the objector and applicant between 20^th and 30^th March 2023 and an e-mail dated 6^th April 2023 from Carter Jonas. There were 2 lots of additional information from the applicant comprising Beercraft Premises Licence and Plan and 16-page additional information document.

Terril Wolyn, agent for the applicant addressed members and talked them through what was applied for in terms of regulated activities. To amplify, she explained that the exhibition of film was to enable old style Japanese black and white films to be played with no sound and that they were not applying for live or recorded music. Ms Wolyn noted that the applicant had undertaken a trial of the concept as a pop-up at The Grapes which had had no adverse effects on the licensing objectives and she noted that Beercraft which had a tap room and was located at the premises previously from 2017 until surrendered last year, had not been the subject of any complaints and this had been confirmed by the licensing team. In conclusion Ms Wolyn submitted that the proposed nature and character of the premises was reasonable, and the conditions offered were appropriate and proportionate, the premises is not in the cumulative impact area, and there had been no representations from the expert responsible authorities. On behalf of the applicant, Ms Wolyn offered an additional condition, namely “On occasions when the premises trades after 2300 there will be no new entry to the premises after 2330.”

There were written and oral representations of objection from Suzanne Evans who is the owner of the flat located above the premises who felt that if granted the operation of the licence would undermine the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objective. Ms Evans indicated that she was not objecting to the application in its entirety but in respect of late-night activities after 2300. Ms Evans indicated that she was hoping they could negotiate a level of decibels that could be played and that there could be formal agreement. Ms Evans noted the examples of other licences submitted by the applicant and referred to differences she perceived between those premises and the application premises, in terms of nature of the operation, composition of the buildings and locations. In conclusion, Ms Evans indicated that she has no doubt that the applicant would be responsible, but she owns half of the building and feels she should have some control as well as the applicant’s assurances. Ms Evans invited members to limit the number of late nights throughout the year, with no music after 11pm on the ground floor, a noise limiting device and for the licence to be given on a 12-month period initially with review at that point.

In determining this application Members were careful to take account of the relevant written and oral representations both for and against the application and balanced their competing interests but they noted that the objector was not against the application in its entirety, only in relation to activities after 2300.

Members noted that there had been no representations from Responsible Authorities nor the Licensing Authority.

Members disregarded irrelevant issues including matters concerning Building Control, matters the subject of other statutory regimes and noted that the applicant had not applied to play live or recorded music at the premises.

Members were satisfied on the evidence they had heard and read that the application, including the operating schedule and additional condition offered, would promote the licensing objectives.

Authority is therefore delegated to the licensing officer to issue the licence with conditions consistent with the operating schedule subject to the following additional condition offered by the Applicant and indicated below, which members consider to be appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objective:

“On occasions when the premises trades after 2300 there will be no new entry to the premises after 2330.”