Agenda item - BEAK MRKT Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

 

Licensing panel hearing held virtually via Teams on Thursday 4^th April 2024 in respect of the application for a premises licence in respect of premises known as Beak Market, 47 Trafalgar Street, Brighton BN1 4ED

 

The Panel has read all the papers including the report and relevant representations, further submission by the applicants, and potential conditions, and has listened to all the submissions made today.

 

This is an application for a new premises licence within the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and therefore subject to the special policy on cumulative impact as set out in the Statement of Licensing Policy. Our policy states that applications for new premises licences will be refused following relevant representations unless the applicant has demonstrated that their application will have no negative cumulative impact. The special policy will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

 

However, the policy is not absolute. Upon receipt of a relevant representation, the licensing authority will always consider the circumstances of each case and whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify departing from its special policy in the light of the individual circumstances of the case. If an application is unlikely to add to the cumulative impact of an area, it may be granted. The impact can be expected to be different for premises with different styles and characteristics.

 

The application is for a street food market with food from independent businesses and selling locally produced ales and low intervention wine. Hours for sale of alcohol are proposed every day from 09:00 to 23:00 on and off the premises. Since the application was submitted the applicant has liaised with the police and agreed to a set of conditions to be applied to the licence. These include that the only sales of beer, lager and cider permitted under the licence is that produced from a craft brewery, and Cafe style conditions. The applicant has also submitted a detailed explanatory document explaining the nature of the application and style of operation proposed.

 

Five representations were received. They were received from Sussex Police, The Licensing Authority and local residents. Three further supporting representations were also received from local residents and local businesses.

 

The representation from the police acknowledged that the applicant had worked closely with them and considered that the conditions agreed went some way to mitigating risk in this area but wanted the panel to refuse the off-sales aspect and consider the terminal hour. The licensing authority had concerns about the application in terms of the special policy and the Matrix approach wherein a cafe in the CIZ should close at 10pm and  considered it was appropriate for the panel to scrutinise the application. One of the local residents spoke to his representation and highlighted the saturation of licensed premses in the immediate area and the issues this caused. He believed this application could only add to the problems already in the area and that it was not exceptional.

 

The applicant Mr Tapper stressed the food led aspect of the application and the link with Beak Brewery. The warehouse was currently derelict, and their proposed use of the space would be a positive benefit to the community. There would be 4 rent free kitchens occupying with a coffee concession and bakery 97% of the space with just 3% for sale of craft beers mainly from the Beak Brewery and limited wines. Comprehensive conditions were offered and an acoustic report commissioned. They did request limited off sales and would be willing to limit these further by way of conditions.

 

The panel is mindful of the location of the premises in the CIZ and of the concerns raised. All parties were able to question the applicant about the application and nature of their proposed operation and canvass further conditions. The operation did not fit neatly within a category of the Matrix for decision making. Asked why a restaurant would not be more appropriate (which could sell alcohol to midnight), the applicant said this would detract from the ethos of a street food operation which was more flexible than a formal restaurant and had a different feel. To the panel the business proposed fell somewhere between a cafe and a restaurant. It was stated that 95% of the beer sold would be produced by the Beak Brewery. There was no outside area and the noise report stated there would be no negative impact and some acoustic work to the roof would take place. In terms of off sales, they could be restricted to 8pm and only craft beers could be sold.

 

The panel considers that this application has lots of features which set it apart from others and could be considered exceptional in order to justify a small departure from the policy. These were set out in the supporting document and emphasised at the hearing. The kitchen spaces would be rent free, the space in general would be available to community interest groups for free. The majority of the alcohol to be sold would be from the Beak craft brewery. This was likely to attract a different type of clientele. The closing time was between that of a cafe in the CIZ and a restaurant. In terms of off sales, the panel noted the police concerns but considered that a limited permission was appropriate and would be unlikely to give rise to problems.

 

The panel is therefore granting this application with all the agreed conditions with the police to go onto the licence, including those appropriate ones from the operating schedule. In terms of off sales these would end at 20:30 each day and be limited to the sale of beer produced from a craft brewery. The panel considers that the nature of the operation with all the robust conditions attached is not likely to add to cumulative impact and will promote the licensing objectives.

 

The minutes of the panel will be available on the Council’s web-site under the rubric ‘Your Council’

 

Appeal Rights

(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003)

 

1.              The applicant may appeal against the decision to impose conditions on the licence.

2.              A person who has made a relevant representation may appeal against the decision to grant the licence or against the decision to impose conditions.

 

All appeals must be made to Magistrate’s Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of deemed delivery of this letter. Delivery will be deemed to have been effected on the second working day after posting.

 

 

3               The BEAK MRKT Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

 

3.1      The Panel considered a report of the Executive Director, Housing and Neighbourhoods requesting that they determine an application for an Application for a New  Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the BEAK MRKT, 47 Trafalgar Street, Brighton, BN1 4ED.

 

          Officer Presentation

 

3.2      Donna Lynsdale introduced the application on behalf of the applicant.

 

          Representation – Sussex Police

 

3.4      Hannah Staplehurst (HS) made a representation against the application on behalf of Sussex Police licensing, they made note that no prior meeting was undertaken with police licensing prior to the application being lodged and also made note that the applicants had been in regular contact with the police licensing during the consultation period.

 

3.3     They also made note of the CIZ context and ward specific issues related to alcohol related disorder. They also made note that conditions had been agreed with the applicant in retrospect and made clear their objection to off sales. Also made note that a condition of a terminal hour of 23.00 was to be included which was not included in the initial application and asked the panel to be minded toward rejecting the off sales portion.

 

3.4     Cllr Robinson asked for clarification on the licensing hours requested.

 

3.5      HS confirmed the ‘café’ conditions had been agreed with the applicant, which would usually end at 22.00PM and that the applicant was requesting an additional hour to serve till 23.00PM and a close at 23.30PM.

 

3.6     Cllr McGregor asked for clarification from SP on the data comparing the    number of licenses granted compared to the rise in alcohol related crimes.

 

3.7      HS confirmed that they did not have the data requested to hand and could only provide data on the number of violent crimes in the ward in the prior 12 months.

 

          Representation - Licensing Authority

 

3.8     Emma Grant made a representation against the application on behalf of BHCC   Licensing noting the applicant agreed to withdraw off-sales and then re-added them.

 

3.9     The rejection was on the grounds the application was contrary to the BHCC licensing policy due to it being in the CIZ which would be likely to contribute to the impact on the area.

         

 

          Representations from the Public

 

3.10    Peter Crowhurst (PC) made a representation against the application on behalf of residents in the North Laine ward detailing the change in the area over the past 30 years. Noting that the area had seen an increase from around 30 to 95 licensed premises and 18 alone on Trafalgar St. Making note of the acoustics of the area and the fact that the properties in the area were not suited to the environment that had developed with the licensed premises saturating the area.

 

           Representations from the Applicant

 

3.11   Daniel Tapper (The Applicant) outlined the application on behalf of Beak Market, providing a brief of the background of the business including a pre-existing brewery in Lewes and their personal background of being a food/drink journalist and made note of 2 existing licensed premises in Lewes in which Beak Market operated. They made note they have had 0 incidents over the past 3 and a half years, stating this was down to them taking their obligations as license holders seriously.

 

3.12   Making note that the plans for the premises would result in minimal disruption as the location was currently very much suitable to the plans unlike other submitted plans for the premises to be demolished. They also made note that it would be supplied by a local brewery supporting the local economy and offering start-ups spaces to undertake the launching of their own businesses.

 

3.13   The applicant disputed the representations given against and made it clear the venue was food led and substantial food would be available at all times, 97% of floor space being set out to food preparation and consummation. There would be clear signage and door staff preventing the formation of queues. The premises was planned to be a part of the business crime reduction partnership and waste would be stored on the property and dealt with in a way that would be the least disruptive to residents.

 

3.14   The applicant also made note that the exceptional circumstances allowed deviation from the matrix conditions and outlined how their circumstance was exceptional and that all conditions had been considered. They made note that there was an equal number of reps for and against and the planning application had a greater number of supporting reps then against.

 

3.15   The applicant also stated that they would be offering kitchen spaces for free (of rental payment) for start-up food businesses, taking a small commission allowing a much more sustainable approach to setting up new businesses. They would also be open to community groups, cycling groups and other social causes using the venue.

 

 

3.16  Cllr Robinson asked a question regarding the limitation of off sales to prevent           disorder and around the support of the local residents of the project and surrendering the license should the business fail.

 

3.17 The Applicant confirmed that off sales could be limited if it would assist the application, and residents had overwhelmingly been in support of the project.

 

3.18 PC asked to clarify the situation regarding community support –noting that the planning application was supporting but the NLCA (North Laine Community Association) only meets every 2 months which meant that the consultation period was not discussed by the NLCA due to the timing.

 

3.19 The Applicant made note that the NLCA licensing rep was very much in support the proposal and agreed with the resident that the business may not be in the right place in an ideal world, but it was the only available and suitable for the proposals regarding the building to be used itself.

 

3.20 Rebecca Sidell confirmed the noise report mentioned had not been submitted to the panel and asked for clarification on the proposed sound proofing to be installed.

 

3.21 The Applicant confirmed a noise impact assessment had been paid for and the outcome was that the acoustics of the building and sound proofing were sufficient to ensure that there would be minimal disturbances, they admitted this was hypothetical but confirmed they were working with contractors and an architect to ensure all steps would be taken in the construction/refit of the venue to ensure any disturbance to the local community and residents would be minimal.

 

3.22 Cllr Robinson requested confirmation on the extraction mechanism regarding the kitchen and food prep areas. The Applicant confirmed that pre-existing extraction facilities in the building could be used, and methods were being considered.

 

3.24 Cllr Cattell asked for conformation for a smoking area, or any procedures related to this. The Applicant confirmed that within the premises and immediate surrounding area that customers could be asked to not smoke in the vicinity of the venue.

 

The Chair adjourned the panel from 11.23AM till 11.38AM

 

          Closing Submissions

 

3.26 Cllr McGregor asked if the residents present had any concerns or questions before the summary period began.

 

3.27 PC made representations that the matrix and CIZ policies were too flexible and in favour of business over residents .

3.28 The Chair gave examples of the benefits of flexible policies such as the implementation of the shelter hall venue whilst till being understanding of the position of the resident of the NLCA.

 

3.29 Donna Lynsdale provided a summary of the application and the proposed additional conditions that could be applied.

 

3.30 HS summarised the case on behalf of Sussex Police Licensing and made note they had worked closely with the applicant and asked the panel should they be minded agreeing the proposed additional conditions and made note they had no confidence in the additional off sales proposed and requested the panel reject this option.

 

3.31 The Chair thanked all parties and called a close to the meeting so the panel

        could retire to deliberate on what they had heard.

 

The Panel retired at 11.57AM.

 

Note: The Legal Adviser to the Panel confirmed that the applicant would receive written notification of the Panel’s decision.