Agenda item - The New Bush, 1 Arundel Road, Brighton

Report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety (copy attached).

61.1    The Panel considered a report from the Assistant Director of Public Safety regarding an application for review of a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for The New Bush, 1 Arundel Road, Brighton, BN2 3TE (for copy see minute book).

 

61.2    Mr Sharp, representing the Freeholder, Enterprise Inns; Mr Reily, co-lessee; Mr Lakin, Premise Licence Holder (PLH) and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS); and Mr Kirby, co-lessee; attended the hearing to make representations against the application. Ms Rirsch from Environmental Protection at Brighton & Hove City Council attended to make representations in favour of the review application.

 

61.3    The Licensing Manager began her statement and stated that the review application had been submitted by Environmental Protection on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance. No other representations had been received but there was a lengthy history of noise complaint at the premises. Three separate residents had made complaints about noise from the premises. The Licensing Manager stated that incident reports had been submitted by the Police in relation to the premises, and she asked if it was the Panel’s wish to view these.

 

61.4    Mr Sharp stated that the incident reports were part of the representation from the PLH and co-lessees, but felt they were not particularly relevant to their case and the Panel could proceed without viewing them. The Chairman agreed not to see the late incident reports.

 

61.5    The Licensing Manager continued and stated that the options open to the Panel were to modify any of the existing conditions on the licence; to exclude any licensable activity; to remove the Designated Premises Supervisor; to suspend the licence for a period not more than three months; to revoke the licence; or to do nothing.

 

61.6    The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the Licensing Manager’s statement. Mr Sharpe asked what times the noise disturbances occurred and the Chairman stated that this information would be covered in the representation from Environmental Protection.

 

61.7    Ms Rirsch began her representation and stated that a Noise Abatement Order had been issued on the premises in September 2007 relating to amplified music. A noise limiter was installed and set in September 2007, but despite this a following five breaches of the notice were identified. A formal caution was issued on 6 August 2009. Breaches of licence conditions were also observed including door and windows remaining open past the agreed time of closure; patrons drinking outside the premises past the agreed time, and admission to the premises after hours. On 19 June 2008 the noise limiter was reset on the request of the premises, but further complaints were received between December 2008 and June 2009. In July 2009 a meeting took place with the PLH and the Licensing Authority to discuss the situation and possible actions to resolve it. There was evidence that the limiter had been tampered with and although the caution had been served, further complaints were received. Ms Rirsch believed that the licensing conditions were not sufficient to prevent problems at the premises and had called the review to assess these, and she had put forward additional conditions as part of the review. She added that the times of the breaches were recorded as occurring between 22:30 hours and 23:00 hours.

 

61.8    The Chairman asked if there were any questions and Councillor Simson asked if the series of complaints received on 3 September had originated from the same complainant. Ms Rirsch stated that they had come from a variety of different properties around the premises.

 

61.9    There were no further questions from the interested parties.

 

61.10  Mr Sharp began his representation and stated that several improvements had been made to the premises over the last three years and this was acknowledged by both the Licensing Authority and the Police. Meetings with Local Residents’ Associations had taken place and a way forward agreed, resulting in conditions being proposed for the licence.

 

            Mr Sharp stated that the premises had agreed to all of the conditions proposed for the licence but asked for three amendments to the conditions. He stated that the premises was willing to keep doors and windows closed but asked that the condition be amended to “when regulated entertainment takes place” as there was not a noise problem at other times. Mr Sharp added that keeping the doors and windows open during the summer assisted with ventilation of the premises.

 

            Mr Sharp also asked that the number of customers allowed to smoke outside be increased from 5 to 8 persons, which would reflect more accurately the numbers that currently smoked outside the premises on a busy night. Finally, Mr Sharp asked that the condition relating to customers congregating outside the premises be clarified to state “the designated outside area”.

 

61.11  The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr Sharp’s representation and Councillor Simson asked what measures would be put in place to ensure the premises adhered to these conditions, as there was evidence they were not adhering to the current conditions on the licence. Mr Lakin replied that conditions would be adhered to in the future, and new hand-held monitors had been purchased by the premises to help with checking noise levels.

 

61.12  Councillor Simson asked if meetings with the Police were still taking place and Mr Lakin replied that they were not as the Police were now happy with the premises.

 

61.13  The Chairman asked for a guarantee that the new licence conditions would not be breached as the old ones had, and Mr Lakin replied that the premises was no longer holding karaoke nights, which had been the source of some of the complaints.

 

61.14  The Chairman asked if live bands played at the premises and Mr Lakin stated that they were, but the music was run through a sound limiter. The Chairman pointed out that the unit had been tampered with in the past and was not successful in preventing noise complaints. Mr Lakin agreed but added that they were in the process of making the unit tamper-proof to ensure there were no further problems.

 

61.15  The Chairman asked about the meetings that the premises had with the Local Residents’ Association. Mr Reily stated that they had attended the Black Rock Residents’ Association to ascertain if any complaints were being made about the premises, but there had been none. The meeting was not specifically about the premises and they had not made themselves known at the meeting. This association had now closed down and the premises did not meet with any other associations.

 

61.16  The Chairman asked how noise complaints were dealt with at the premises. Mr Lakin stated that the residents did not complain directly to the premises but rather went through the Environmental Protection Team, who then subsequently notified the premises that a complaint had been made.

 

61.17  Councillor Simson asked why the condition relating to doors and windows was being breached. Mr Lakin replied that the premises staff tried to ensure all the doors and windows remained closed but customers would open them again without their knowledge.

 

61.18  Ms Rirsch asked if there was a taxi policy at the premises. Mr Lakin replied that there was, and that customers could wait inside the premises for their taxi to arrive.

 

61.19  Ms Rirsch asked if the premises would accept a condition to prevent karaoke taking place at the premises. Mr Reily said they would not agree to this as it would make the business too inflexible.

 

61.20  Councillor Simson asked for assurance that the premises management understood every condition on their licence, as it seemed many were not being fulfilled. Mr Lakin agreed that they did understand, but that it was sometimes so busy at the premises it was difficult for the management to monitor them effectively. Councillor Simson reminded the DPS that it was their legal responsibility to ensure that every condition was adhered to.

 

61.21  The Chairman asked if the premises management were aware of the possible consequences of a second review, which could lead to revocation of the licence and Mr Lakin agreed that they were.

 

61.22  The Licensing Manager began her final statement and stated steps for a first intervention could include removal of the DPS and/or manager, suspension of the licence or restriction in hours of licensable activities. The first intervention should be treated as a clear warning and there was a presumption of revocation should the premises be reviewed again.

 

61.23  Ms Rirsch stated that she had nothing further to add to her representation.

 

61.24  Mr Sparks began his final representation and stated that the premises management recognised the situation was serious and steps would be taken to ensure that they did not loose the premises licence. He stated that all conditions would be adhered to and that the premises management understood the consequences of a second review.

 

61.25  RESOLVED – That the panel decided to take the following action in respect of the review:

 

The panel decided to amend the times for some licensable activities so that all regulated entertainment should finish at:

 

Mon-Thu 10:00 – 23:00

Fri-Sat 10:00 – 00:00

Sun 10:00 – 22:00

 

New Years Eve is unaffected.

 

They decided to attach the conditions from Environmental Health with amendments as follows:

 

1.      All live and amplified music will be controlled with a tamper proof sound limiter to be set and agreed by the Environmental Health Department.

2.      There will be no drinks allowed to be taken outside the front or the rear of the premises between 22.00 and 10.00

3.      Windows will be kept closed when regulated entertainment is taking place and after 23.00 hours.

4.      All external doors, including the internal lobby doors will be kept closed when regulated entertainment takes place, other than for access and egress.

5.      Licensees and staff will undertake regular walks around inside and outside the premises in order to monitor noise levels and ensure that both ambient sound and sound generated during regulated entertainment is at a level that does not constitute a nuisance. These checks will be documented.

6.      No more than 8 customers outside on the front terrace area of the premises between 23:00 and closing.

7.      All drinks consumed in the outside area must be in plastic or shatterproof glasses. Management will not allow patrons to congregate outside of the designated terrace area on the pavement, curb or in the road whilst drinking etc.

 

The following 2 conditions are to be removed from the licence:

 

1.      On Friday and Saturday nights there will be no admission or readmission to the public after 22.30 hours until close

2.      Drinking by patrons in the area immediately in front of the pub seated at tables/benches will be allowed in from opening until 21.00 hours only, after which any remaining patrons must go insider the premises. All drinks consumed in the outside area must be in plastic or shatterproof glasses. Management will not allow patrons to congregate outside of the premises on the pavement, the curb or in the road whilst drinking etc.

 

The panel were concerned that there were many conditions on the licence already some of which had been breached. They wished to emphasise that it was the responsibility of the Designated Premises Supervisor to ensure the conditions were adhered to. Some of the existing conditions such as 3 monthly meetings with the police should be re-visited by the licence holder in conjunction with the police to see if they were still relevant or should be removed perhaps by way of a minor variation application. Further the panel stressed that it was good practice to meet regularly with local residents to resolve any problems at the premises.

 

The panel warned the licence holders that this was a first intervention under the Government red and yellow card system so that in effect this was a ‘yellow card’. The consequences of a second intervention could be dire for the premises.