Agenda item

The Sub-Committee confirmed that they had received copies of the additional information circulated by the Licensing Consultant.  They were also provided with paper copies of the documents at the meeting. 

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) presented the report to the Sub-Committee.  He stated that they were being asked to determine an application for a variation of a Premises Licence for Raincheck, 7 Edgar Buildings, Bath, BA1 2EE.  He confirmed that no comments had been received from the responsible authorities.  Two relevant representations had been received, one from a local resident and one from the Chair of the Circus Area Residents’ Association.  He also explained that the premises is located within the B&NES Cumulative Impact Policy which is relevant to the application.

Cllr Toby Simon asked whether any complaints had been received regarding this premises.  The Public Protection Officer confirmed that no complaints had been received in the last two years.

Terrill Wolyn, Licensing Consultant, presented the case for the applicant and explained that Raincheck is a high-end premises with professional people as its clientele. She pointed out that there have been no concerns or complaints received since the licence was granted.

She explained that the issues raised by the objectors were not relevant to the licensing objectives.  She stated that there is no evidence that groups of revellers in the proximity had left a licensed premises.

She stated that there is no evidence that Raincheck creates a serious disturbance.  There is also no evidence to suggest that family life for residents would be detrimentally affected as the clientele and circumstances would be the same on Monday to Wednesday as on Thursday to Saturday.  No issues have been raised regarding the clientele with regard to noise, public nuisance or crime and disorder.  This is a testament to the way that the premises is managed.  The current conditions under which the premises operate are appropriate.

Ms Wolyn also explained that the general principles of the Licensing Act must apply and that a variation must be granted if there are no relevant objections.

In response to a question from Cllr Toby Simons it was confirmed that Raincheck is a cocktail bar and not a food establishment.  The applicant also explained that on weekdays they operate a table service for around 30 to 50 people with no large groups.  It was also noted that there are generally no hen or stag parties mid-week and that these groups would have to pre-book and door staff would then be provided.

Cllr Steve Hedges asked whether there was music at the premises.  The applicant stated that there is relaxed music which is not too loud and that there is no dance floor.  Notices are provided asking people to respect neighbours.  Ms Wolyn explained that there is a wind down period to ensure that people do not all leave the premises at the same time.

Ms Wolyn summed up by stating that this is a stylish and well-run establishment which is part of Bath’s vibrant and diverse night-time economy.

Decision and Reasons

Members have determined an application for a variation to the Premises Licence at Raincheck, 7 Edgar Buildings, Bath, BA1 2EE. 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 noted that the premises falls within the Cumulative Impact Assessment Area which means that the Cumulative Impact Policy is engaged. In those circumstances there is a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations relating to “on trade” (sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises) situated within the Area 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.

Members had regard to 2 lots of additional information provided on behalf of the applicant and circulated to the objectors in advance of the hearing, comprising: section 5A Licensing Act 2003, a summary of the Thwaites case, an extract from the BANES website with links to the BANES Statement of Licensing Policy and Appendices, excerpts from the Banes Licensing policy and Statutory Guidance and e-mail confirmation from BANES’ Licensing department that there is no record of any complaints against the premises for the two years prior to the current application.

Terrill 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 premises is a stylish, welcoming, well-run establishment which has already been operating during the late-night hours requested during the latter part of the week. Ms Wolyn noted that there were no representations from the police or Environmental Protection or any of the other responsible authorities in relation to public nuisance or crime and disorder, and they are the experts in this area. Ms Wolyn also indicated that there were no complaints to licensing in relation to the premises since it opened in 2021. Ms Wolyn made the observation that within the objections there is no evidence provided which links to the premises. In submissions Ms Wolyn addressed members on the cumulative impact policy.

Members had regard to the written objections from Mr Baldwin, Chair of the Circus Area Residents Association and Mr Merriweather who is a resident. Those objectors expressed concerns that the proposed variation would undermine the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. They were concerned about the impact of another late-night venue in this area which they felt was already saturated with late night premises. They were also concerned about noise and disruption and the stress and potential mental health impact on families living in the area.

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. Members disregarded irrelevant issues including the necessity, or not, of the proposal.

Members noted that there had been no representations from Responsible Authorities.

Members were satisfied on the evidence they had heard and read that the application would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.

Authority is therefore delegated to the licensing officer to issue the licence as applied for.