Agenda item - Wine Me Up - Application for a Variation

105.1    The Panel considered a report of the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing for an application for a variation of a premises licence for Wine Me Up, 7 Lewes Road, Brighton. In attendance were the Premises Owner Mr Daldeniz, the DPS Mr Ozturk and their agent Mr Hopkins. Councillor Pete West attended to make a representation against the application.

105.2    The Licensing Officer, Sarah-Jane McNaught, provided an overview of the application. The premises was in neither the Cumulative Impact Zone nor the Special Stress Area, and the application was seeking a variation of the existing licence from 0000 to 0100 Sunday to Thursday and to 0200 Friday and Saturday. The original premises licence had been granted in June 2010, and at this time the Police had made an objection and additional conditions had been added to the satisfaction of both parties. In relation to the variation it was highlighted that no representations had been received from the Police or Environmental Health; the single representation from Councillor Pete West made reference to the Public Nuisance and Crime and Disorder Licensing Objectives. Section 4.8 of the Councils Statement of Licensing Policy was highlighted to argue the premises was situated in a residential area.

105.3    The Chair invited questions for the Licensing Officer. There were none.

105.4    The Chair invited Councillor West to set out his representation. Councillor West highlighted that there were already problems in the Lewes Road area with public nuisance and crime and disorder. The Council had recently included Lewes Road in the Special Stress Area; however, the application had been made before the new policy came into effect, and this demonstrated the direction of Council policy in this area. Councillor West used the example outlined in Section 4.8 of the Licensing Policy to argue that Lewes Road should be treated as a residential area and, as such, premises should be licensed with terminal hours of 2330. Councillor West stated it was unfortunate there were no representations from local residents, but it was his opinion that there was an interest in these issues from the local community, and if granted the later hours would attract more trouble to the area. Councillor West went on to note that there was inconsistency in the approach taken by the Police.

105.5    The Chair invited questions from the Panel for Councillor West. In response to a query it was confirmed that the premises was part of a small cluster of shops with housing across the road. The applicant also confirmed that there was a pub further north on Lewes Road near to the premises.

105.6    The Chair invited the applicant to set out their case to the Panel. The agent, Mr Hopkins, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and explained that the applicant owned a number of premises in the city, and had a good working relationship with local Police. The area was a mixed residential area that was predominantly student based. The application had received no representations from Responsible Authorities, and it was highlighted that it was common practice for the Police to make representations on new premises licence applications but not object if the premises applied for a reasonable variation and had no history of problems.

The Premises had a CCTV system, and ensured there were two members of staff on the shop floor during the busier hours on Fridays and Saturdays. There were other off-licences in the area that closed at 0300; the application was to meet the needs of the local student population. Mr Hopkins argued that the points made by Councillor West, in relation to public nuisance and crime and disorder, were speculative as there was no evidence to link any such problems to the premises. Mr Hopkins stated that on the visit he had made to the area he had observed that most of the population were students, and the area was mixed residential and commercial; it was his observation that the premises was situated on a busy transport route with a pub approximately 100m away. This was an application for a modest increase to the current licensed hours in a premises with no history of problems, and this was reflected by the absence of representations from any Responsible Authorities.

105.7    The Chair invited questions from the Panel for the applicant. It was confirmed that staff did not generally leave the premises on their breaks during the busier Friday and Saturday periods. Staff at the premises had attended training sessions run by Trading Standards. New staff were trained at the commencement of employment, and refresher training was provided; a training record was also held.

105.8    The Premises Licence Holder confirmed the whole of the premises was licensed for the sale of alcohol to allow flexibility in the layout of the shop floor.

105.9    The Premises Licence Holder and the DPS were aware of the nuisance problems that could potentially be caused by students, and the premises displayed noise notices to attempt to mitigate any such problems.

105.10  The Chair invited questions from Councillor West to the applicant. Mr Hopkins confirmed he had based his observations on the Lewes Road area on a single visit and local information he had received from a taxi driver, which he believed was offered in good faith. Councillor West argued that a single visit would limit observations of the area and stated that there were many families in the area who would not consider it to be a student area.

105.11    The Chair asked for summaries.

The Licensing Officer highlighted the hours of variation set out in the report.

Councillor West highlighted that there were a large number of students in the area as well as families and other long term residents. The proposed extension to 0200 would take the premises into late hours and would draw more people into the area creating potential problems in relation to public nuisance and crime and disorder.

Mr Hopkins stated that the Premises Licence Holder would be willing to reduce the hours of application to 0100; but highlighted that there were nearby premises that operated well beyond these times. It was highlighted that this was a well run premises and the application for a variation would not increase problems in the area.

105.12  The Panel retired to make their decision.

105.13  RESOLVED - The Panel had listened very carefully to the arguments put forward, and noted there had been no objections from individual residents, the Police or other Responsible Authorities to the application.

The applicant had demonstrated that they undertook regular training, and took steps such as signage and CCTV to discourage antisocial behaviour.

The Panel was prepared to accept the terminal hour of 0100 as proposed by the applicant with the exception of Sunday which they considered should have terminal hour of 0000.

In addition Condition 2) at Annex 2) of the licence, that two members of staff be on the premises from 2100 to 0000 Fridays and Saturdays, be amended to 0100 to reflect the variation to the hours of licensable activity.

The Panel stated this was consistent with the current Licensing Objectives.