Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham, Le Cornu, Kerley, Milner and Blampied. |
IN THE MATTER OF THE S BAR
Mr K. Manning appeared on behalf of the Applicant Jeppeto Limited.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On 26th September, 2013, the Licensing Assembly received an ex-parte application by Jeppeto Limited, the holder of a First Category Licence in respect of the S Bar, to 4 La Motte Street, to extend the licence to include an area on the pavement outside the licensed premises, in respect of which the applicant has applied for and obtained a chose publique permit. The application was considered at a Parish Assembly, where it was approved by 21 votes in favour to 5 against. A number of people spoke at the assembly, and one of them, Mr Gino Risoli, also attended the Licensing Assembly to object.
2. In presenting the application, Mr Manning submitted on behalf of the licence holder that as a chose publique licence had already been granted there was no reason why the Licensing Assembly should not extend the licence so that patrons of the licensee could have a drink outside. He pointed to the increasing pedestrian use of this area of the town. Mr Risoli opposed the application on three grounds. He said that the S Bar was situated on a very busy junction. The unloading bay outside the S Bar was very heavily used. He traded opposite at La Petite Baguette. He thought it was obvious that no extension of the licence should be given.
3. Secondly, he said, pedestrians would almost certainly have to cross the street if they wanted to walk down La Motte Street. They would be crossing on a bend that was dangerous. Thirdly, the idea that one had al fresco tables here where customers would be eating carbon monoxide was a curious idea as it was unhealthy.
4. The Connétable supported the application. He pointed out that if the licence were not granted, the proprietor could still use this area as a result of the chose publique licence. He said the States had refurbished the area at considerable expense, and al fresco catering was part of the design of the scheme and would enhance the area. The Roads Committee was fully satisfied that this was in order. In his reply Mr Manning pointed out that Mr Risoli was a competitor operating his business from quite close by.
5. On the plan showed to us in support of the application, the al fresco area, which measures some 24 square metres, takes up the entire width of the pavement along approximately three quarters of the northern boundary of the building with the pavement, tapering off to a smaller section as the al fresco area extrudes south-west towards the western entrance to the licenced premises. The consequence of the chose publique is that pedestrians walking from Colomberie or Snow Hill into La Motte Street would be required to step off the pavement either into the road, or into the unloading bay north of the pavement, or would have to cross the road to the other side in order to walk down La Motte Street. We have to take the application as it is, but we feel obliged to say that the grant of a chose publique permit in this area seems to us to be surprising. The corner from Colomberie down into La Motte Street forms a U-bend. It is capable of being extremely dangerous. The idea that pedestrians will either have to walk in the road, which as a result of the unloading bay and bus stop is narrow, or have to cross the road on a blind corner like this is one which we find difficult to comprehend. Pedestrians are therefore left with walking in the unloading bay which may or may not be taken up with vehicles offloading their cargo, which is what the bay was designed to permit.
6. At the Parish Assembly, the Director of Technical Services indicated that Transport and Technical Services had considered the matter and had approved the use of the outside area for a chose publique licence following a survey on the use of the unloading bay. It was suggested that the operating hours for the chose publique licence would be between 11am and 11pm, and the unloading bay would be sectioned off by bollards so that it could be used by pedestrians. However, no amendment to the Road Traffic Order had been made to achieve that result, and such an amendment might take a number of weeks. It is apparent to us that an amendment to the Road Traffic Order of this kind is not a formality. There are a number of businesses in that area which would no doubt expect to be consulted by TTS or by the Parish before any such order were made. It is common knowledge that the unloading area is well used. It is the type of order which, if made, could give rise to parliamentary debate in the States.
7. We have given careful thought to whether it is appropriate for us to receive the application for a licence for the al fresco area when the licence has been granted so that the area can be used in any event, blocking the pavement and causing potential danger to pedestrians. 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,
and may grant a licence of a category different from that for which application is made."
8. As to the interests of the public in general, these are finely balanced. There is quite clearly a public interest, reflected by the Connétable, in extending al fresco areas in the town, improving the ambience and encouraging tourism and perhaps other businesses as well. On the other hand, there is a public interest in providing facilities for unloading of goods to businesses in that area, which is particularly necessary given the pedestrian precinct in King Street and Bath Street, and there is a public interest in the safety of pedestrians.
9. As to the business to be conducted and the suitability of the premises, the balance in our view is much more straightforward. Diagonally opposite from the licenced premises is an al fresco area which is more than sufficiently wide to accommodate patrons and pedestrians safely. The purpose of the application for a liquor licence in respect of the chose publique outside the S Bar must be taken to be the provision of alcoholic drinks to customers in that area. In our view it is simply not suitable. This is not a minor road or cul-de-sac. It is one of the town's major thoroughfares. For our part, we do not think it was appropriate to grant a chose publique licence, but that is not our business. We do think that serving alcohol to patrons in this area will increase the numbers of people using the al fresco and there are serious concerns about the impact of those numbers on traffic and safety. We do not consider these premises are suitable of the conduct of that business, and because that is our view, Article 6(9) of the Law requires us to refuse the application.
Authorities
Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.