LICENSING COMMITTEE
4 JULY 2012
LICENSING ACT 2003 – INFORMATION UPDATE
Fir Vale Road in Bournemouth the sixth most violent street in the UK
A Bournemouth street has been revealed as the sixth most violent in the country by a thinktank.
Fir Vale Road is home to Bournemouth’s biggest nightclub, Lava Ignite, and other clubs like Bliss and Walkabout are yards away on adjoining roads. The figures come from UKCrimeStats, which carries out research for the Economic Policy Centre and the statistics showed there were 203 violent crimes on or near Fir Vale Road between January, 2011 and November, 2011. The country’s worst street was Albert Road South in Watford, another nightclubbing hotspot, which had 306 violent crimes.
UKCrimeStats said it analysed data partly from the new crime information website police.uk. Dan Lewis, director of UkCrimeStats, said the data was not precise but he said the research enabled people to compare areas around the country. Businesses operating in the area were unsurprised by the news.
Sunny Sharma, owner of the restaurant Ciao in Old Christchurch Road, said: “I can sum up this area in one word – disgusting.“I could tell you some horrific stories about the things we see here. We are forever having to hand over our CCTV footage to the police. “It’s got to the point now where I cannot leave a female here on her own at night. It’s not safe. “We get reviews on Trip Advisor which praise our food but say this is the worst street in Bournemouth. They are intimidated by what’s going on outside – the yobs fighting, the police wagons. “It’s a shame. When we opened eight years ago there were lots of nice restaurants here, now it is all kebab houses.”
And a taxi driver who works weekend nights in Bournemouth said: “It’s madness down here. The police are at full stretch and there is all sorts of nonsense going on.“Over on the other side of town, people are that bit older and better behaved. All the trouble is concentrated in one spot.“The students get a bad press but I don’t think they deserve it, generally they are well behaved. It’s the stag and hen parties I think that cause most of the trouble.”
Bournemouth Council has longstanding concerns about night-time violence and the image it gives Bournemouth. Cllr Dave Smith, cabinet member for communities, recently ordered a review of the night time economy.
He said: “Nearly all the violent crime referred to in this research occurs between midnight and 6am as a result of excess drinking.“Bournemouth is generally safe but the problems associated with the night time and economy and excessive drinking need to be addressed.” The council is considering using Early Morning Restriction Orders, which can stop the sale of alcohol during the early hours, to stagger closing times in different areas of the town.
A Dorset Police spokesperson said: “We continue to work hard with our partners to reduce crime in Bournemouth town centre and there has been a 9.3 per cent reduction so far this year. “A large number of crimes that take place in Fir Vale Road are alcohol related. We use taxi marshals in the town centre and we deliver hard-hitting training to licensed premises to make them aware of action they can take.”
Jon Shipp, Bournemouth’s night-time economy co-ordinator, said: “According to the latest police statistics we know that the numbers of violent crime incidents taking place in Bournemouth town centre are falling and has continued to do so over the last two years. We are all committed to reducing the numbers of incidents further. “The Bournemouth By Night study that was recently commissioned will also play an important part in the process of developing Bournemouth’s nightlife.”
Backlash against chuggers as Gloucester latest city to ban 'charity Muggers'
The backlash against so-called “chuggers” has gathered pace with Gloucester becoming the latest city to ban the charity street fund-raisers after numerous complaints that they are “intimidating” shoppers. Gloucester City Council wants to follow the example of Burnley, Lancs, which has entered into a voluntary agreement with charities to stop the fund-raisers collecting five days a week. More than 40 other councils also want to limit “charity muggers” to certain days of the week or ban them completely.
Another hugely important topic for the trade relates to the proposed ban on low price alcohol and the Sunday Times on the 4th March confirmed that “David Cameron is to introduce a minimum price for alcohol of 40p a unit despite fierce opposition from cabinet colleagues and the drinks industry”.
The Sunday Times reported that “Downing Street is braced for a year of legal battles with drinks manufacturers, particularly the beer and cider sector whose products will be hardest hit”. The article notes that the price of super strength cider may well double while the price of low cost supermarket lager could raise by a third and it appears that there is internal debate within the cabinet as Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, believes it will hit those on low incomes the hardest whereas the Liberal Democrats who have campaigned for many years for a minimum alcohol unit price are delighted at the decision.
If the proposals go through then the gap between the price of alcohol in supermarkets and the price in pubs will narrow, although the introduction of a minimum unit price will require primary legislation. We have already seen the difficulties such legislation can encounter in Scotland when despite Alex Salmond’s administrations attempt to introduce a similar policy, it has been constantly delayed by opposition. Some examples reported in The Times suggest that the increase may not be too dramatic. It reports the current price of four 440ml cans of Stella to be £3.50 and the cost of those drinks with the minimum price of 40p per unit would be £3.52. A bottle of Sauvignon Blanc at £6.49 would remain the same although a two litre bottle of premium cider which has a current reported price of £2.27 will cost £4.24.
How to Win New Licences in Cumulative Impact Zones
Legal advisors have recently been involved in a significant number of applications for new Premises Licences in cumulative impact/stress areas. These have been for new bars, off licences and a Kentucky Fried Chicken. All of these have been applications in areas where the local policy has said there should be no more licences granted. Representations were received leading to the applications going before the Licensing Sub Committee.
Cumulative impact zones are not a creature of statute - you won't find them in the Licensing Act.
They are in existence because they are contained in the Guidance document which the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and now Home Office are duty bound to produce due to Section 182 of the Licensing Act. They are created in chapter 13 of the Guidance document which deals with localised Statements of Licensing Policy. The Government has introduced these in this document because they believe that “the cumulative impact of licensed premises on the promotion of the licensing objectives is a proper matter for a Licensing Authority to consider in developing its Licensing Policy Statement”.
The policy will come into existence in a local area after evidence is produced to the authority to show that there is a need for its introduction. This will be evidenced through crime statistics and incident mapping to show where the hotspot areas are and at what times they impact on the licensing objectives.
The practical effect of the policy is to create a rebuttable presumption that new applications for Premises Licences (and variations which could have a significant impact) will be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the authority that they will not add to the difficulties that already exist in an area.
Barristers have recently been instructed to make an application in the cumulative impact/stress area for central Nottingham by Tesco. Nottingham's Statement of Licensing Policy has a particularly stringent city centre saturation zone and the wording of the policy states that “the authority will refuse applications for premises in the city centre saturation zone where representations about cumulative impact, crime and disorder and or nuisance are received.” The policy goes on to state that for an applicant to be successful he will need to satisfy the Licensing Authority that there are exceptional reasons for granting a new licence. It highlights that an applicant is “not likely to be classed as exceptional merely on the grounds that the premises have been or will be operated within the terms of its licence or that they are or will be well managed”. It is particularly difficult to overcome such a policy when representations are made by the police, other responsible authorities, ward councillors and interested parties.
In this case it was decided to produce expert evidence to overcome the issue of exceptional reasons to grant.
Part of the evidence was to instruct a senior ex-police officer who had previously held a licensing function in another authority area, to undertake investigations of other premises in the stress area.
In the case it was stressed that there were six exceptional reasons to the grant of the licence as follows:-
- The client's track record nationally - operating in other stress areas without having a negative impact.
- The client's track record in Nottingham - having successfully been granted a licence against Police representations outside the stress area.
- The nature and style of the operation Tesco were to offer.
- The training and due diligence packages that Tesco operate with.
- The likely impact of the premises judged against the licensing objectives.
- The negative impact that some of the other operators where having in the area compared to Tesco's other units.
These cases are not to be entered lightly and need to be strategically assessed with expert evidence being called to overcome particular difficulties. Localised issues need to be carefully considered and preparation is critical. There is a real concern that these policies can stifle the introduction of better operators than maybe exist in the particular area which is in no ones' interests.
Do you know where your child is?
Only a minority of 15 year olds say they have been out after 9.00pm without their parents knowing where they were in the last month, but for those that did, it is associated with problematic behaviour:
- 14 per cent of boys and 11 per cent of girls who have frequently stayed out late without their parents knowing in the last month (3 or more times) were visiting pubs or bars once a week or more.
- 25 per cent of girls who stayed out once in the last month without parents knowing admitted to consuming alcohol more than once in the last month. Alcohol consumption rises to 64per cent for girls who stayed out past 9.00pm without telling their parents where they are more than three times in the last month.
- However, family income has little effect on whether a child stays out late without telling their parents
- Living in social housing or with a single mother increases the probability, but living in a step-family does not
Over-45s tend to drink more often, says ONS survey
Adults aged over 45 are three times as likely to drink alcohol every day as those aged under 45, results of a lifestyle survey suggest.
More than 22% of men aged 65 and over, but just 3% of men aged 16 to 24 drank almost every day - though younger adults were more likely to binge drink.More than 13,000 people across Britain completed the Office for National Statistics survey.Experts recommend three alcohol-free days a week.
The findings of the General Lifestyle Survey 2010 cover a range of topics including people's drinking and smoking habits.On alcohol consumption, the survey found that 54% of adults drank alcohol at least once a week and 26% did so more than twice a week. It also found that adults tended to drink more often as they got older. Some 12% of women aged 65 and over drank alcohol almost every day compared with 1% of the 16 to 24 age group.
For men and women combined, 2% of the 16 to 24 age group, 5% of the 25 to 44 age group, 10% of the 45 to 64 age group and 16% of the 65 and over age group consumed alcohol almost every day in 2010.
The government recommends that men should not drink more than three to four units of alcohol per day and women should not drink more than two to three units per day.Many people are unaware that they are putting themselves at risk by drinking more than they think. Although younger adults were less likely to drink every day, the survey suggests that they were more likely to binge drink than older adults. The survey results show that 24% of men aged 16 to 24 and 25% aged 25 to 44 drank more than eight units of alcohol in a single day. This compared with 20% of men aged 45 to 64 and 7% of men aged over 65 drinking a similar amount on one day.
The survey also found that men tended to drink more often than women - 16% of men consumed alcohol on five or more days a week compared with 10 per cent of women. In addition, 12% of men had an alcoholic drink almost every day compared with 6% of women.Overall, 87% of adults averaged at least three alcohol-free days a week. Earlier this year the Royal College of Physicians said that people should have two to three alcohol-free days a week.
When it comes to smoking, the lifestyle survey found a fall in the prevalence of cigarette smoking over the past four decades - from 45% of adults smoking in 1974 to 20% in 2010.But there has been a large increase in the proportion of smokers who roll their own cigarettes.In 2010 39% of male smokers rolled their own compared with 18% in 1990.
Illegal poker clubs closed
Local authorities working in five different areas have achieved great success in closing down the activities of a chain of allegedly illegal poker clubs which appeared, initially in one local authority area, and then spread to four more, namely Basingstoke, Southampton, Bournemouth, Slough and Reading. The poker organiser initially claimed that these were members’ clubs (and therefore entitled to club gaming permits allowing unlimited stakes and prizes poker), and then later claimed that it was offering poker as private gaming and was therefore exempt from the licensing provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act). The local authorities worked together, with expert advice and support from the Gambling Commission, to deter the operation and as a result, the clubs in all five areas have closed down.
The case raises two important issues the status of ‘voluntary’ contributions in private gaming the meaning of private versus public in the context of private gaming played by members of an allegedly private club. First, it is a condition of private gaming that no charge (by whatever name called) is made for participation and Schedule 15 to the Act makes it clear that a deduction from or levy on sums staked or won by participants in gaming is a charge for participation in the gaming. It is irrelevant whether the charge is expressed to be voluntary or compulsory, particularly if customers are prevented from playing if they do not make the ‘voluntary’ donation, or there is strong peer pressure to make the donation. A relevant decided case in another licensing field is that of Cocks v Mayner (1893) 58 JP , in which it was found that an omnibus said to be available free of charge but whose passengers who were invited to (and in some cases did) make a voluntary contribution was “plying for hire” without the appropriate licence.
Second, the decided cases of Panama (Piccadilly) Ltd -v- Newberry [1962] 1WLR 610 and Lunn v Colston-Hayter (1991) 155 JP 384 are helpful in guiding local authorities in deciding whether a person ceases to be a member of the public merely because they have agreed to become a member of a club.
In the first of these cases (which related to a strip show), the court said that an applicant for membership of the club and admission to the show was, and remained, a member of the public, as the whole purpose (of membership) was to get members of the public to see the show and there was no sufficient segregation or selection to cause an applicant to cease to be a member of the public and to acquire a different status as a member of a club on signing his application form and paying the charge.