Content

The decision of the Committee is to grant the
application to amend the layout of the premises in accordance with
the plan but to refuse the application to amend the hours and
replace the conditions.
 
 
The Committee in reaching its decision has
taken into account:
 
· 
The evidence before it both written and oral
 
· 
The relevant parts of the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy
 
· 
The relevant parts of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of
State
 
 
Committee’s reasoning and findings
are:
 
Committee noted that the application before it
relates to an existing licensed premises on the first floor of
premises at 27-29 Nelson Street.  The
premises are operated by an experienced operator who also owns and
operates the licensed premises below, namely Friki Tiki.
 
Committee accepted the submission of Mr
Parsons-Munn that there are no representations relating to the
change of layout of the premises and that Committee were therefore
obliged to grant that part of the application.
 
With regard to the amendment of hours and the
change to the conditions, Committee were advised that the premises
are located within the cumulative impact area and that special
policy 2 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy
applies to the application.  Mr
Parsons-Munn accepted that the burden lies with the applicant to
satisfy the Committee that the application is exceptional and if
granted will not adversely impact upon the licensing
objectives.  In support of his
submission Mr Parsons-Munn explained that the owner is experiencing
financial issues and the commercial viability of the premises rests
upon the decision of this committee. 
Without an extension of hours as sought the premises, including the
premises below, may not exist in 12 months time.  This would leave a large empty premises within
Nelson Street.  In this regard,
Committee accepted the contents of the written representation from
the Business Improvement District supporting the application.
 
The premises were described by Mr Skevington
as unique in so far as their operating style is varied depending
upon time of day and which day of the week.  Sunday lunch times are particularly busy as is the
tapas style food offering but the premises are also busy in the
early hours due to patrons from the hospitality/shift industry.
 
There is no expectation by the applicant that
the increase in hours from 03:00am to 04:00am will result in
additional patrons attending the premises, hence the offer of a
last entry condition, rather that the patrons already present will
stay for the extra time.  Committee were
concerned however that dispersal of those patrons after 04:00am
would  impact upon the licensing
objective of public nuisance and accepted the evidence of Ms
Wheatley-Carr and Ms Wallis on behalf of Environmental Health that
background noise levels at that time in the morning would be
reduced thus increasing the potential for disturbance to residents
in the area.  It was accepted that the
premises are located within a mixed commercial/residential
area.
 
Committee accepted the submissions of
Northumbria Police that whilst there is no direct evidence of
incidents of crime and disorder relating to the premises themselves
the increase in availability of alcohol would negatively impact the
licensing objective of crime and disorder. Committee had regard to
the list of crimes provided by Sgt Cottiss for the area in the
vicinity of the premises and her evidence that the increase in
patrons in the area could also increase the likelihood of such
patrons becoming either victims or perpetrators of crime at a time
when police resources would be stretched.  Although Committee were of the view that it is not
appropriate to adopt a blanket approach to any application for an
increase in hours they were persuaded by the Police evidence that
in this instance there was no offering of compromise that could
alleviate their concerns in this regard.
 
Regarding the representations relating to
policy issues submitted in writing by Public Health and orally by
Jonathan Bryce on behalf of the Licensing Authority, Committee
accepted that the policy had been drafted following consultation
and having regard to data supplied by many parties.
They  were aware that they must have
regard to the policy but could not fetter their discretion in
considering applications.  On this
occasion they were not satisfied that the applicant had discharged
the hurdle described by Mr Parsons-Munn as being “high”
regarding exceptionality. Essentially the justifications for the
application were of a commercial nature and the conditions offered
in support thereof did not provide assistance in proving
exceptionality.
 
Committee were sympathetic to the challenges
currently faced by hospitality and the issues faced by the
Applicant but were not persuaded that the economic issues could be
construed as exceptional for the purposes of the
policy.  They noted that the Applicant
is a good operator but felt that this should be the norm rather
than exceptional.
 
Committee noted and gave appropriate weight to
the written representation of the local ward councillor.
 
In all of the circumstances, Committee
unanimously decided to refuse the application to amend the hours
and accordingly it would not be appropriate to add the new schedule
of conditions offered by the applicant.