To consider the report of the Head of Licensing and Registration on an application received for the grant of a premises licence in respect of Brew Dog, Unit 2, Whit Cloth Hall, Leeds
The Sub-Committee, having regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy considered an application for the grant of a premises licence for Brew Dog, Unit 2, White Cloth Hall, Crown Street, Leeds LS2 7DA.
Representations had been received from LCC Health and Safety Team, however these had subsequently been withdrawn following an agreement being reached with the applicant. Other representations had been received from West Yorkshire Police, LCC Environmental Protection and LCC City Development.
Present at the hearing were:
Mr Bruce Gray- the applicant
Mr Tony Lyons- solicitor for the applicant
Mr Bob Patterson and PC Cath Arkle- West Yorkshire Police
Mr B Kenny- LCC Environmental Protection
Mr C Sanderson- LCC City Development
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Lyons who was representing the applicant. He informed Members that Brew Dog is a Scottish based business which has successful licensed premises in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen as well as Camden. The application was for a premises which had been vacant for some time, and it was hoped would create 10 new local jobs. There would be no more than 60 customers on the premises. Mr Lyons informed the Sub-Committee of the ethos of the Brew Dog company- it believes it is different to other pubs in Leeds as it brews it’s own beers and wishes to educate people in appreciating beers in a similar way to appreciating fine whiskey or wine. He reiterated the experience of the Brew Dog company in running similar premises in other cities, and emphasised the company’s achievements in not having any incidents in any of it’s premises to date. He reminded the Sub-Committee that no local residents had objected to the application.
Mr Gray addressed the Sub-Committee in relation to his style of operation, indicating that he would hope to be a positive influence on the area by educating people to a different way of drinking. He informed the Sub-Committee that staff training was extensive and thorough and that customers were not allowed to become drunk.
The Sub-Committee heard from PC Arkle who outlined her concerns with regard to the application. The premises was located in a violent crime hotspot within the Cumulative Impact area which was not covered by the Leedswatch CCTV system. Whilst much work had been done to try to address this, there were many problems and issues in that area. An additional concern was that Brew Dog would be likely to attract different people to it rather than those already using the area, therefore drawing additional people into the area which could exacerbate the problems there.
Mr Kenny, LCC Environmental Protection, addressed the Sub-Committee. He described the problems with public nuisance in the area, and outlined his concerns that an additional premises and therefore additional customers there would make the problems worse.
Both WYP and the EPT expressed surprise that residents had not raised representations as they were aware of a number of complaints submitted by residents in the area about existing problems.
Mr Sanderson, LCC City Development informed the Sub-Committee that the permitted planning hours for the premises were based on them operating as a café bar, and suggested that a change of use may need to be applied for in order to reflect the proposed use as a bar. He informed the Sub-Committee that the permitted planning hours were imposed due to the proximity to residential property and the impact on the amenity, and suggested that the application be rejected due to public nuisance and the Cumulative Impact Policy.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered all the written and verbal submissions. Whilst the concept of the bar and style of operation were welcomed, it was noted that the premises were within a violent crime hotspot within the Cumulative Impact Policy area. The Sub-Committee were regrettably not persuaded that the application would not add to the impact in the area, despite the undoubted experience of the operator.
RESOLVED- That the application be refused.