Agenda item - The Fountain Head, 102 North Road, Brighton

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

97.1    The Panel considered a report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety regarding an application for a variation of a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for The Fountain Head, 102 North Road, Brighton.

97.2    Mr Perkins, solicitor to the applicant and Mr Bennet, Estates Officer for the Fountain Head, attended the hearing to speak on behalf of the applicant in favour of the application and Mr Skam, Mrs Chandler, Mrs Powell and Councillor I Davey as Ward Councillor came to speak against the application.

97.3    The Licensing Manager began by stating that this was an application to vary the existing licence to include an extension. Additional papers had been received from the applicant’s solicitor stating that there had been an error in the original application and clarifying that they were not requesting additional hours on the licence. There had been letters of representation received from residents regarding issues of public safety and public nuisance. There was very little history in terms of complaints for this premises.

97.4    Councillor Davey began his representation by stating that since the Fountain Head had opened 2 years previously the local neighbours had suffered disturbance from noise and anti-social behaviour in the area. He noted that despite being in the heart of the city, the premises was situated in a mainly residential area and the pavement was regularly blocked by crowds of people standing outside to drink and smoke. He stated that the residents were able to hear noise from inside the pub in their living rooms and an extension of the premises would only create a greater noise nuisance for these residents.

Councillor Davey stated that the premises was in a Special Stress Area and this needed to be taken into account when approving new or varied licences. The conditions proposed on the application would not ensure that the four licensing objectives were upheld, but if the Panel were minded to grant the variation, Councillor Davey asked that extra conditions be added to the licence to include closing the outside area of the premises by 22:00, closing the access/egress on to Cheltenham Place by 22:00 and ensuring that the windows and doors to the premises were closed at all times.

97.5    Mr Perkins, on behalf of the applicant asked Councillor Davey if he was aware of how big the extension of the premises would be, and Councillor Davey replied that he was not. Mr Perkins stated that it would be an increase of no more that 20% of the floor area and asked if Councillor Davey felt this constituted a large increase. Councillor Davey felt that it could be.

97.6    Mrs Chandler then began her representation by stating that the pavements around the premises were frequently blocked with customers talking and smoking and this resulted in pedestrians having to use the road to pass the premises. She felt that the area could not accommodate an additional 20% increase in customers to the premises and stated that the noise disturbance the residents currently suffered would be made worse if this application was granted. There had been refuse problems created by the premises and Mrs Chandler felt there had been no attempt to consult and work with local residents to ensure they were not adversely affected by the activities of the premises.

97.7    A Panel Member asked if an Environmental Health Officer had attended to check the noise levels in the area and Mrs Chandler replied that they had, and since the visit the music could no longer be heard unless the doors and windows were open.

97.8    A Panel Member asked how many additional people Mrs Chandler thought would attend the premises with a 20% increase in floor space and Mrs Chandler stated that she felt it would create a significant impact. She estimated that there were already 30 to 40 people outside the premises on a busy evening and any increase in numbers would be intolerable.

97.9    Mrs Powell then began her representation and stated that she was objecting on the grounds of the four licensing objectives. She felt that increasing the capacity of the premises would have no benefit to the community and that the residents already suffered from anti-social behaviour problems, which would increase if the variation was allowed. She noted that this was a Special Stress Area and felt that this needed to be taken into account when determining the application.

97.10  Mr Perkins then began his representation on behalf of the applicants and stated that the applicants had purchased the adjoining property to extend the business in order to create a more comfortable environment for their current clientele. He stated that the increased space would provide for probably not more than 20 additional persons as a large proportion of the extension would be given over to increased kitchen space.

Mr Perkins noted that the premises was not by nature a late-night establishment and the majority of trade was conducted in the early evening. The applicants generally played music at background levels only and the varied application would have no overall effect on how the business was run. He stated that the applicants were aware that the premises was located in a Special Stress Area and had included conditions on the licence to address this. Mr Perkins finally noted that in his applicant’s view, Cheltenham Place was a route to and from the town centre for many people and their premises was being unfairly blamed for anti-social behaviour caused by these people when they passed through the area.

97.11  A Panel Member asked what the total capacity of the premises would be and Mr Bennet, Estates Manager to the Fountain Head, replied that it would be a total of 120 people at the most, although the premises would rarely be full to capacity.

97.12  A Panel Member noted that there were several people using the outside area of the premises already and asked how an increase in customers would affect this. Mr Bennet replied that this area was strictly controlled by staff and only 30 people were allowed seated outside at any one time. This would continue if the variation was granted.

97.13  A Panel Member asked how many entrances were located on Cheltenham Place and how these entrances were monitored and Mr Bennet replied that there were two entrances and door staff were employed on Friday and Saturday nights to help control any crowds around these entrances.

97.14  The Licensing Manager gave her final submission and stated that the premises was in a Special Stress Area and further monitoring of the premises could be required to ensure the licensing objectives were being upheld. She stated that statutory noise nuisances could be dealt with via Noise Abatement Notices rather than licensing conditions.

97.15  Councillor Davey began his final submission by stating that this was the largest pub in the North Laine area and in his opinion the outside area was not closely monitored. He felt that it was not acceptable for pavements to be blocked by customers and asked that if the variation was granted, more stringent conditions be placed on the licence to ensure that the residents did not suffer any further noise disturbance or anti-social behaviour.

97.16  Mrs Chandler began her final submission by stating that there had been no disturbance in the area before the pub had opened and that smokers standing outside the premises created even more problems since the smoking ban had been initiated.

97.17  Mr Perkins then gave his final submission by highlighting that this was a small extension to the premises and a nominal increase in customers. He felt that the external area was properly controlled and closed by 23:00. The extension was to create a better environment for current customers and to provide space to prepare more hot food.

97.18  RESOLVED – that the application for a variation of a premises licence be granted for the following reason:

The panel decided to grant the variation application. They were mindful that the premises were in a special stress area. The application would mean an increase of 20% floor space and an increase in customers. They were concerned about the possibility of additional noise outside the premises but believed that the existing conditions on the licence if adhered to would ameliorate these concerns and stated they expected the premises to comply with these. The panel reminded residents that if there was a breach of the conditions or noise nuisance from the premises then this could lead to a review of the licence.