Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC130

royal court

(Samedi Division)

24^th June 2009

B-BAR LICENCE APPLICATION

J. Le Cras, Solicitor, for the Appellant.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        This is an application by Armada Leisure Limited for a 7^th category licence in respect of the premises known as the B Bar, 4 Wharf Street, St Helier.

2.        The background is as follows.  The applicant already holds a 1^st category licence in respect of the premises.  However, that requires the applicant to cease serving alcohol at 11.00 p.m. and all patrons to vacate the premises by 11.30 p.m.  If a 7^th category licence were to be granted, alcohol could be served until 1.00 a.m. with patrons having to leave by 1.30 a.m. 

3.        Mr Bisson on behalf of the applicant, made it clear that the application was driven by commercial considerations.  The applicant is owned by members of the Bourne family who have a long history of managing licensed premises in the island and indeed own two premises in the nearby vicinity which hold 7^th category licences.  They have made a substantial investment in the B Bar which tends to attract a younger clientele.  Many of the patrons wish to continue drinking after 11.00 p.m.  In order to do so, they have to leave the B Bar and move to other premises in the vicinity which can stay open later.  Mr Bisson mentioned in particular Chambers and the Royal Yacht Hotel.  Many of the patrons have indicated that they would like the B Bar to remain open for longer, in which event they would remain there rather than move to alternative premises. 

4.        The intention is to provide entertainment by way of music played by a disc jockey or a live band with dancing.  The premises are suitably soundproofed for such activities.  If granted, the 7^th category licence (like the present 1^st category licence) would be operated only on Fridays and Saturdays although the premises would also open on Wednesday evenings during the summer season and on the day preceding any bank holiday.  There would be CCTV coverage throughout the premises together with suitably trained staff. 

5.        The application gave rise to some discussion at the Parish Assembly but was approved by 16 votes in favour with 12 against. 

6.        Mr Bisson accepted that there were legitimate concerns about allowing the establishment of further licensed premises in the vicinity which could stay open beyond 11.30 p.m.  However, he argued that there was a finite number of persons who wished to attend places of entertainment and that accordingly, allowing extra premises would not add to the number of people spilling on to the streets.  On the contrary, it would reduce the number of occasions upon which such persons went on to the streets.  At present there was a large movement of patrons from the B Bar to other premises at about 11.30 p.m.  Those same patrons would then re-appear on to the streets at either 1.30 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. following closure of the premises to which they had moved. Conversely, if the application were granted, those patrons would stay at the B Bar until 1.30 a.m. and would therefore only emerge on to the streets on one occasion. 

7.        He also accepted that the Pomme d'Or Hotel, which backs on to Wharf Street, had legitimate concerns about noise and disturbances from patrons leaving the B Bar at 1.30 a.m.  In order to seek to allay these concerns the applicant was proposing that, after 11.00 p.m., patrons of the B Bar should only be allowed to leave the premises by the exit in Cross Street rather than from the normal exit in Wharf Street.  Mr Bisson produced a report from a firm of noise and vibration control specialists who took measurements on two consecutive Saturdays, namely 6^th and 13^th June, 2009.  On the first occasion, all customers left via Cross Street whereas on the second occasion they left as normal via the Wharf Street exit.  The specialists found that, typically, customers emerged from the bar and chatted in groups outside before deciding which way to head.  When leaving via Cross Street, 60% headed towards Hope Street of which 65% (i.e. 39% of the original number) turned right and went into Wharf Street heading towards the Royal Yacht Hotel.  The remainder turned left at Hope Street and headed in the direction, possibly, of Chambers.  40% of customers turned left out of the exit in Cross Street and headed to Conway Street.  As to noise levels, they recorded figures in two rooms in the Pomme d'Or Hotel which suggested that noise levels were greater on the second occasion than the first.  However the validity of these figures was rather questionable given that, on the first occasion, they had used a third floor room whereas on the second occasion they had used a first floor room.

8.        In summary, Mr Bisson submitted that there was a need to compete in a fierce commercial environment and there was a need for a level playing field.  There would be no material increase in noise or disturbance on the streets and the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to minimise this. 

9.        The Connétable of St Helier said that it was a difficult application for the Parish but it had been approved narrowly.  He said that the use of Cross Street was welcome as it was not a residential street.  He thought that the noise levels in Wharf Street would not be materially affected by a grant of the application as there would still be substantial numbers of people going along the street to and from the Weighbridge in the early hours.  The real problem, he suggested, was that the noise levels in many of these premises were very loud with the result that people tended to shout when they came out on to the streets.  In addition there was anecdotal evidence that people were being served when they were drunk and this required strong action from the Licensing Unit and the honorary police to address the problem.  He thought that the most significant matter in controlling the problem was the quality of management of licensed premises rather than the quantity of licensed premises. 

10.      The head of the Licensing Unit at the States of Jersey Police raised two concerns about the application.  She said that the States Police did not allocate officers to each 1^st category premises but that they did allocate officers to attend each 7^th category premises at closing time.  Thus the number of premises was significant and an additional 7^th category premises would require additional resources from the police, which was not easily available.  Her second concern was that there was no States Police CCTV in Wharf Street or Cross Street whereas most 7^th category premises had CCTV on the street outside the premises, which could be monitored by the police. 

11.      The Assembly also heard from a number of speakers on behalf of the Pomme d'Or Hotel including Mr Robin Seymour, Mr David Seymour, Mr James Redshaw and Mr Luis D'Oliveira.  Mr David Seymour emphasised that they received many complaints from customers about the noise levels and this made it very difficult for them to compete with other hotels in town.  In addition entries by visitors to the hotel on internet sites commenting on noise levels in St Helier were not helpful to Jersey tourism generally.  He also understood that there was an application in the pipeline to increase the capacity of the B Bar from 400 to 700, which, if granted, would materially increase the noise and disturbance in the Wharf Street area.  He also pointed out that the disturbance to guests in the hotel was not just from people in Wharf Street.  Those who emerged into Conway Street very often walked down towards Liberation Square in order to attend some of the 7^th category premises on the Esplanade and this brought them past bedrooms in the hotel backing onto Conway Street. 

12.      The Assembly also heard from Mr C Tanguy who is the licensee of the Corinthian public house and supported the application. 

13.      Article 6(9) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 provides as follows:-

"The Licensing Assembly, in deciding whether or not any application should be granted, shall have regard:-

(a)  to the interests of the public in general;

(b)  to the nature of the business conducted or to be conducted on the premises sought to be licensed and the suitability of those premises for the conduct of that business....."

14.      Having considered carefully all the submissions made to it, the Assembly has decided to reject the application.  We would summarise our reasons as follows:-

(i)        The public are undoubtedly concerned at the level of noise, disturbance and drunken behaviour in the streets of St Helier late at night and in the early hours of the morning.  This affects not only those who are living or staying in the area but also those seeking to pass peacefully about their business at that time. 

(ii)       In our view, there will be a material adverse affect on the levels of noise and disturbance in Wharf Street and Conway Street if this application is granted.  We accept that granting the application would not necessarily lead to an overall increase in the number of persons leaving the B Bar and passing down these two streets.  However, the timing would change.  At present the patrons leave at about 11.30 p.m.   If the application were granted, they would leave at about 1.30 a.m. i.e. some 2 hours later, at which time guests of the Pomme d'Or Hotel can be expected to be trying to sleep.  We consider that increasing the number of people using Wharf Street and Conway Street at 1.30 a.m. by up to 400 people is likely to have a material adverse affect on the area, particularly bearing in mind the Connétable's point that those emerging from a noisy environment after consuming drink will tend to shout and be very noisy.  We accept of course that there is already noise as a result of persons passing along these streets going to the Weighbridge from other places of entertainment but we have no doubt that the introduction of a new 7^th category premises with a capacity of 400 people will lead to a material increase in noise and disturbance.  This is so notwithstanding the plan to allow patrons only to leave the premises via Cross Street because, as the report from the consultant shows, some 39% will still walk down part of Wharf Street adjacent to the hotel and an unknown part of the 40% going to Conway Street will still walk past the Pomme d'Or Hotel in that street. 

(iii)      We accept the point made by the Licensing Unit to the effect that the more 7^th category premises there are, the more the resources of the States Police will be stretched if they are adequately to police the vicinity of such premises at closing time.  It seems to us important that the police should be able to provide a presence in such areas where there is a strong possibility of the outbreak of disorder. 

(iv)      No evidence was produced to us of any unfulfilled demand for 7^th category premises in St Helier.  The sole reason given for the application was the need to compete on a level playing field with other premises which have designated nightclub status or hold an ordinary 7^th category licence.  If we were to grant this application on such grounds, it is hard to see that we would be able properly to refuse other applications based on similar grounds subject to being satisfied as the suitability of the premises and the nature of the surrounding locality.  We do not consider it to be in the interests of the public in general for there to be a large increase in the number of 7^th category premises in St Helier because of the likelihood of increased noise and disturbance being caused in the vicinity of such premises in the early hours of the morning.

(v)       We also think it desirable that CCTV, which can be monitored by the police, should be available in those streets immediately adjacent to 7^th category premises and that would not be the case here. 

15.      For these reasons we reject this application.

16.      We would add this pursuant to some of the comments of the Connétable.  It is clear to members of the Assembly, when sitting in their capacity as members of the Royal Court, that many of those who appear for sentencing on public order offences or offences of violence are extremely drunk but have nevertheless been served with alcohol at licensed premises.  That is an offence under the 1974 Law.  We urge the Licensing Unit to take a firm line on such matters and to refer suitable cases to the Attorney General, so that he can in turn consider whether to make a reference under Article 9 of the Law to this Assembly.  In such cases the Assembly could consider suspension or revocation of a licence.  The holding of a licence is a privilege and along with that privilege goes the responsibility of ensuring that the Law is complied with and that drunken people are not given yet more alcohol to fuel their disorderly or aggressive instincts. 

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.