Decision

The decision of the Committee is to refuse the variation.

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 especially paragraphs 4.7, Ch. 6, Ch. 7 (Cumulative Impact).

• The relevant parts of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State in particular paragraphs 1.16 - 1.18, 2.1 – 2.10, 2.20 – 2.26.

Committee’s reasoning and findings are:

The Committee heard representations from:

Stewart Gibson - who acknowledged that this was not an easy application to make. The premises was in the special stress area and sought hours outside of the Framework hours. The Council’s policy was engaged, and it needed to be demonstrated under Policy SP2 that there are exceptional circumstances and that the application (if granted) will not add to the negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. However, each application needed to be considered on its own merits. The question was whether this operation at these premises, with the conditions offered and policies in place, would be likely to add to the negative cumulative impact of the area.

The premises were not new. They already operated until late and were part of the Night Time Economy. There would be no new source of crime or disorder, public nuisance etc. There would be a substantially strengthened operating schedule. Response was made to the representations from Public Health, Environmental Health, and the Police. A number of matters considered together meant that there were exceptional circumstances here and that the premises would not likely add to the negative cumulative impact issues: this was an existing late night premises (they were already exceptional in that they traded until 0230hrs); it had a positive operating history and the premises were well-managed; the licence would be materially strengthened; after 0230hrs there would be no new entry and no re-entry which would lead to less impact on the licensing objectives; SIA would be provided; comprehensive CCTV and an incident log would be in operation; there would be a dispersal policy and vulnerability and welfare policy. This was also an LGBTQ+ venue which provided a safe environment for its customers. There were no residential objections. The premises should not be penalised given they do not cause negative impacts now.

Additional conditions were offered relating to no off-sales, and no alcohol sold in single measures or promotions etc. after 0300hrs.

Jonathan Bryce – who acknowledged that the conditions offered were aimed at betterment. However, the premises and variation application did come within the Council’s Special Stress Area and were outside of the Framework hours (Policy dated Nov. 2023). The application should be considered on its own merits. They were alcohol focussed and wet-led. The operation at later hours would likely negatively impact the licensing objectives. The Framework hours were intended to reflect the mix of premises, which included residential uses.

Miss Hebb and Sgt Cottiss for Northumbria Police – who stated that Policy SP2 was engaged and the Applicant had to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, and that the variation would not add to the negative cumulative impact issues. Since September 2025 the premises had been well managed, but the variation would lead to increased access to alcohol during the night-time hours, there would be increased intoxication and granting the variation would lead to more victims of crime / disorder or perpetrators of crime. Scotswood Road already has a high density of premises. Whilst the conditions offered would bring about a betterment, they did not go beyond what would normally be expected from late night licensed premises. The further conditions offered would not meet the Police concerns as they might just as easily lead to confusion and conflict where patrons had been able to consume double shots before 0300hrs. The measures in place were not sufficient to meet their concerns. There was discussion as to whether the premises would offer a safe haven for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Victoria Dargue – who spoke to the representation by Public Health. They did not consider that the Applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The Policy explained that the fact that the premises are generally well-managed does not amount to exceptional circumstances.

Decision

The Committee carefully considered all written and oral submissions presented in relation to the application.

The Committee considered that the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety were engaged by the application. Those licensing objectives must be promoted.

The Committee had regard to its Licensing Policy and the s.182 Statutory Guidance. Relevant paragraphs are identified above.

The Committee noted that the premises are located within the Special Stress Area and Special Policy 2 applies. The Applicant had accepted this as they are a Bar in the City Centre SSA. The Committee therefore noted that the burden falls on the Applicant to justify a departure from the policy that the application would be refused. Specifically, under Policy SP2, the Special Policy would not apply if the Applicant could demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances and that the application (if granted) would not add to the negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

In reaching its decision, the Committee also had regard to paragraph 9.12 of the statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which recognises each Responsible Authority as an expert in its respective field. The Police, Licensing Authority, and Public Health had all made oral representations stating that exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated and that the grant of the variation would add to the negative impacts on the licensing objectives. Environmental Health had made a written representation to the same effect.

The Committee accepted that their duty is to consider each application on its merits. Considering the factors put forward by the Applicant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, the fact that there was an existing premises licence was not persuasive. Policy SP2 applies to variation applications as much as to applications for new premises licences. The fact that the premises have been well-managed also does not amount to an exceptional circumstance (para. 7.14.1). As to the other matters, the Committee agreed with the Responsible Authorities that these were all steps which any responsible licensee would be expected to take when operating late night premises in the City Centre. Taken together and with the additional conditions offered at the hearing, the Committee did not consider that exceptional circumstances had been made out.

The Committee agreed with the Police and Licensing Authority that the extension of licensable activities to 0400hrs, even with a last entry / no re-entry after 0230hrs, would still mean that patrons would have access to alcohol for longer before leaving the premises. Even with all of the conditions and policies in place, this would likely add to the negative cumulative impact issues of the area. Although the Applicant suggested that the premises would provide a safe haven for members of the LGBTQ+ community, the Committee felt that that would not be a substitute for a public place independent of any licensed premises. If there was an issue with the current safe haven in the City Centre, its location, and its suitability for members of the LGBTQ+ community, that was a matter for the Police and Licensing Authority to consider.

For those reasons, the Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances to depart from Policy SP2. As a matter of evaluative judgment, the Committee felt that the grant of the variation would negatively impact the cumulative impact issues of the area. Policy SP2 applied and there was no basis to grant the application. Accordingly, this variation application is refused.

In conducting the hearing and making its decision, the Committee has had due regard to the Public Sector Equality duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Conditions

Not Applicable

Right of Appeal

There is a right of appeal against this decision to Newcastle Magistrates’ Court. An appeal must be commenced within 21 days beginning with the day on which you receive written notification of the decision.