Agenda item

Applicant: Jamie Brian

Responsible Authority: Avon and Somerset Police, represented by Martin Purchase (Liquor Licensing Officer), Inspector Steve Mildren, WPC Gemma Kirby

Interested Parties: Alex Schlesinger and one other (name withheld following request for anonymity)

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

The Licensing Officer summarised the application, which was for a variation as set out in paragraph 4.3 of the report. She said that the Police strongly opposed the application, but suggested that if it were granted additional conditions should be attached to the licence as set out in paragraph 4.14 of the report. Representations had also been received from Interested Parties.

The applicant stated his case. He said that he had reopened his shop after it had been closed for a year. Usually not many people came to the shop, though it was patronised by tourists during the summer months. He mostly did home deliveries. He wished to sell alcohol because it had been requested by customers.

A Member asked the applicant to comment on the statement made by Inspector Mildren given on page 135 of the agenda that “the Police licensing officer made several attempts to discuss the application with the applicant but was told by the applicant that he was far too busy to undertake a meeting”. Mr Brian replied that he worked till 5 am seven days a week. Attendance at today’s hearing had cost him two hours trading. He had been unable to guarantee that he would be available at a specific time for a meeting with the Police.

A Member asked the applicant at what times customers came to the shop. Mr Brian replied that they generally came until midnight or later at the weekend. Working class people coming to the shop wanted to be able to buy a drink. He didn’t think that people would be leaving nightclubs and then coming to his shop to buy alcohol.

Mr Schlesinger asked the applicant if he knew how many representations the application had received from interested parties and if he understood why there were so many? The applicant replied that he did not.

The other parties stated their cases.

Mr Purchase said that over a three week period he had tried to contact the applicant. He had left several messages on his ansaphone and had emailed, but the applicant had failed to reply. The premises were located on a busy arterial route and there was a high level of crime and disorder in the area. There were already two other licensed premises nearby. Inspector Mildren said that the premises were located within the zone where drinking on the street was forbidden. It was a densely populated area which was crossed late at night by people going home. It was his view that the granting of the application would add to the level of disorder in the area. The applicant said in response that that people had easy access to alcohol

Mr Schlesinger said that there was not a great deal to add to his written representation. He said he had moved to London Road in 1995. It was a somewhat fragile community. A recent survey of 700 people had said that they were concerned about the alcohol and drugs problems in the area. It would be perverse to increase the number of outlets selling alcohol. He had had to sweep up vomit outside his property and a neighbour had had a window broken. People had been too frightened to come to a meeting to discuss the problems of disorder and anti-social behaviour in the area. There had been a murder witnessed by forty people, yet no one had been willing to come forward to make a statement.

The parties summed up.

Following an adjournment, it was RESOLVED to refuse the application for the reasons set out below.

REASONS

Members have determined an application to vary a Premises Licence at Mix Grill, Bath.  In doing so they have reminded themselves of the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998. 

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act 2003 is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do that which is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives on the evidence before them.

Accordingly, Members listened carefully to the applicant, took account of the representations from the Responsible Authority and Interested Parties and were careful to balance these competing interests. However, Members were careful to disregard matters relating to planning, parking, necessity and the safety of members of the public in the vicinity of the premises as these matters fall outside of the Licencing Act.

The applicant stated that he wanted the variation to enable him to make the most of his business. He said he provided a service to late night workers who want to eat and have a drink on the way home. He said that much of his custom is delivery based and that 90% of people attending the premises were not drunk. He said that he had invested a lot in the business but that if the committee did not want him to sell alcohol than he agreed with that. He said the area was not as bad as people had said and he felt that doing the right thing by calling the police had not helped him as it made his premises look bad. 

Interested Parties stated that the area suffers from a degree of crime and disorder and nuisance in the form of fighting and shouting from customers on and outside the premises. A number of incidences have also involved staff at the premises and has often resulted in police attendance. The residents felt that to allow the variation would lead to further incidents of damage, violence and litter given the applicant does not take responsibility for the operation of his premises at present and therefore would not in the future. 

The Police stated that fast food outlets are flashpoints for alcohol related crime and disorder because of the convergence of intoxicated persons on such premises whether alcohol is supplied there or not. Accordingly the Police also provided a log of incidents directly attributable to the premises. These include examples of violence against person; 29/10/10 drunk male inside the shop trying to fight staff; 19/01/11 4 or 5 males being violent inside the premises; 6/10/11 members of staff assaulted and a female outside assaulted in a separate incident and 14/07/11 a male’s head is stamped on inside the premises. There are also incidents of disturbance/threats and nuisance; 14/07/11 drunk male throws bottle at the premises window; 10/07/11 male inside Mix Grill shouting; 10/06/11 shouting and disturbance and allegation of a knife being pulled and numerous allegations of intimidating behaviour and threats by and towards members of staff at Mix Grill.

Members find the premises are situated on the busy London Road. This is a main arterial route in and out of the city. Members also find the premises are located in an area with a number of other fast food outlets, shops, convenience stores, a supermarket and petrol filling station. In the circumstances noise and litter could only be attributed to these premises in part. However, Members found a level of antisocial behaviour, nuisance and crime and disorder are associated with and occurring on these premises and the licence holder is unable to cope without police attendance. Members find the premises are a crime and disorder flashpoint and further find the applicant’s failure to engage with the police in this process lamentable and a demonstration of a lack of commitment to his Licensing Act responsibilities. Members also find the crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour is beyond the applicant’s control and with the applicant being reluctant to engage with the police the steps he proposes are inadequate. Therefore the application is refused as there are no conditions that could reasonably be attached to promote the licensing objectives.