I have decided that the only way of ensuring that the effects of the smoking ban may be taken into consideration when licensing decisions are made is to amend the local licensing policy. Cllr Richard Rout and I have therefore written to the Licensing Authority, requesting that a new clause be inserted as follows:
"The 2007 smoking ban has increased the potential for disturbance outside premises after 11 pm and the Licensing Authority will as appropriate take that fact into consideration when determining applications, variations or reviews."
We will not know whether this amendment has been accepted until the end of the current consultation period at the end of the year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Paul - are you suggesting that we return to the Good Old Days, when the pubs shut at 11 o'clock, the sun shone every day and ice creams were bigger? Or is just cover for picking on the Queens Head?
David - I refer to 11pm simply because it is after that hour that landlords seek an extension to hours, and therefore the smoking ban and the Licensing Act 2003 do not have their joint effect until then.
The Queens Head chose to apply for a variation and I am representing eleven of my electorate who have asked me to do so, knowing that very many more support my position.
I feel sure that, given the same circumstances in Risbygate ward, you would do the same.
You need to both grow up!
You treat licenced premises like the antichrist! Without places for the public to go during the evening they will create there own entertainment & I am sure the effects would be much worse. It is unfair to treat publicans /public houses like they are to blame - The government introduced this ban!
Anyone who chooses the convenience of living in a town centre must also realise that there are nightime venues too. If you don't like it, live out of town or earshot of a public house.
Ditto if you don't want to hear bins being emptied by commercial premises at 6am in the town centre.
For the record I live in Hatter st & accept both the pro's & cons.
Hello anon. Good to have someone new to debate with.
No one is blaming publicans or establishments. As you rightly say, the governmnet is to blame for this ban. But the same government that introduced the Licensing Act should have thought of the consequences of their combination.
Local residents who moved before 2003 expected pubs to close at 11pm, giving them a seven hour window of sleep until the bins are emptied. Now, through no fault of their own, that window is substantially reduced.
Incidentally, I wonder what you would say to the person who wrote to me this week with a log of complaints, including the fact that men had been urinating through his letterbox?
There were many establishments open til well over 11pm in the town centre before the new legislation - Fact!
As for urinating through letterboxes, well again that's hardly the fault of the smoking ban or indeed publicans. Unpleasant as it may be it's more a reflection of society today unfortunately.
Anon - I don't need to 'grow up'. Those who hide behind anonymity shouldn't be lecturing anyone about anything.
Paul - you seem to have developed a before and after policy for town centre residents. Those of us who moved in before 2003 are entitled to 7 hours undisturbed sleep every night. Is it less for the rest?
Why do you use the word 'blame'? The legislation seeks to give people more options during their leisure time. Most use it wisely but some do not.
Drinking alcohol in moderation shouldn't be a problem for anyone, even at 2 o'clock in the morning. Excess consumption, or 'drunkeness', is primary a health issue, as is smoking.
Public order consequences sometimes follow, but if councils tackle the health aspects effectively, these could become less obtrusive for our electors. And, of course, some of those who venture out after dark are also our electors. We should be concerned about their wellbeing just as much as those who sit on committees of residents' groups.
I winced when I read about men urinating in letterboxes. As an experienced leaflet deliver you will be as aware as I am that some letterboxes are spring-loaded and can easily trap a finger. I wouldn't recommend that anyone risk damaging Mr Sausage in such an aperture.
Anon - can you give chapter and verse on closing times? Or do you mean the clubs?
Yes, the example I gave is a reflection of society, but licensing decisions need to be made in the context of our society.
David - not a before and after policy, but different justifiable expectations. My use of the word blame was in response to anon.
For "more options" read "later hours".
My main concern is for the hundreds of my electors who live near the dozen or so drinking establishments in my ward.
I considered rewriting your comment and excluding the quaint colloquialism at the end - but I couldn't be bothered. So apologies to anyone offended.
Hide bar until midnight, Sobar til 1 I believe, Benson Blakes is also 1 I'm sure, Karooze I'm unsure of but after 1 for sure, Ambition I think 12, Bar 3 - very late indeed!
All of these were in place before the new legislation. (Poss exception Sobar as they have only bee open around 18 months)
I think it is fair to assume that electors who live in the town also enjoy the Pubs & Bars with others who do not live as local.
Are you sure, anon? I may find out from an authoritative source. In the meantimean anyone confirm?
Anon - it is very difficult to trace the pre Licensing Act closing times, as these were determined by the magistrates.
However, going by the existing licences, I don't believe Benson Blakes served alcohol until 3am, or that Bar 3 closed at 3.30am with an entertainment licence until 5am as now.
Nor did pubs close much later than midnight (if they had a supper or entertainment licence) certainly not as late as now eg One Bull 2.30am.
I agree that many electors enjoy the nightlife of the town, and I support them in doing so providing it does not unduly impinge on residents and others.
I live close to the Rising Sun (which I believe is on David's ward) and the smoking ban has made a difference to us concerning noise levels. (The smokers bring their whaling karaoke voices on to the streets just to make the whole karaoke even more unbearable than it already is - but that's a whole other issue)
But of more concern is the way in which the smokers decide it is great fun to play "chicken" with passing cars and "gary boys" as they become more intoxicated towards the end of the evening. It has been scaring me to death! Shouldn't the Rising Sun provide doormen( or ladies) to ensure the safety of their customers as well as the poor unsuspecting drivers?
Why can't the smokers use the pub's garden where they would not be tempted to try and jump in front of cars?
At last a resident speaks out - and not just in the historic core.
Amanda, my licensing policy clause would enable hearings to consider the effects of the smoking ban which you so graphically describe.
If a licence were called in for review, conditions, such as having doormen, could be added.
That's a better idea than a town centre smoking ban.
Amanda - there are several issues in relation to this particular licensed premises which should be reported to the Suffolk Constabulary. I hope you have done so and I will certainly be alerted the police to your comment.
However, such behaviour shouldn't be tackled by imposing a curfew on pubs and clubs as this would discriminate against the vast majority of people who are only interested in enjoying an evening out and are not committing any offence. So why punish them?
Outdoor smoking in the town centre isn't just an evening issue. Yesterday afternoon, Victoria and I were walking along the pavement on the Abbeygate side of Risbygate Street when we encountered a group of smokers outside Bar 3. We hurried past on the edge of the pavement but were unable to avoid the effects of secondary smoke.
I don't think it unreasonable to ask that this practice should stop in the commercial part of the town centre. I fully understand that nicotine is poisonous and that users become dependent over time. They need rehab not encouragement.
Paul - the term 'doormen' is now obsolete.
See my blog for comment on "doormen".
Hi Paul
Last Saturday was the worst ever, living 20 yards from the Hide Bar and a regular of both the Hide and the Masons qualifies me I think to comment.Both have god landlords, but they cant always be there.
The problem is simply serving people who are too drunk to continue (believe it or not its always been illegal to serve someone who's drunk)
The landlords must tell staff to refuse to serve paralytic customers because all that happens is they walk the extra 20 yards froom the bar,scream obsenities at their partners, pee into letterboxes, vomit on our doorstep and wreck hanging baskets.
Drunk and disorderly is a crime, so is serving drunks. All we need to do is ( with Police on foot, not in a car) show some common sense to calm the drunken behavior by restricting excessive sale in the first place, and if the landlord cant prevent that, prosecute the offender under existing laws
Get Mark Ellis to feel some collars at 12.00 on Saturday and pay his overtime. I do blame the Police for most of this, they hang around all day in bullet proof vests and their Batman utility belts moving on OAP's and go home at night when they are needed
Regards
K
Another noisy night in the centre of Bury. Awake at 12.30/ 1.30/ 2.30 and 5 and then the street sweepers at 6.30
1.30 was the most interesting with 4 of the USAFs finest officers playing bongos on Fulchers bins ( didnt see the dead awake though) and serenading their friends. I was just about to pop my head out of the window and with my best Alabama drawl shout "Yo Muthafunsters, shut the feck up or I'll pop a cap in yo sorry ass" but I recognised the fellows and was more amused than annoyed, They were just having fun. Anyway didnt want to be 'accidentally ' shot up on the A14 by a A10 Warthog mistaking me for an Iraqi tank....
As usual no sleep, but tonight (Saturday) is another day....
K
Thank you for your reports, K, even though I am sorry about the contents.
Unlike some, I don't 'blame the Police'. The Constabulary operates round the clock but they can't be everywhere at the same time.
I'm sure that residents of Whiting Street think more Officers should be deployed in Whiting Street and I know for certain that St Johns Street residents want an increased presence in their street late at night.
I see no advantage in negative comments. Instead, I prefer to support the Constabulary and work with Officers in order to deliver an even better service in the near future.
I am sure its a Constabulary management and resources issue.
If we had police on the beat rather than paper filling to meet the desires and whims of the legal profession, or even 24 hour courts we might make progress. Of course we could move some officers from nice warm traffic cars to high profile street work.
CCTV does not seem to have delivered the promised benefits either. maybe just maybe we need to refine opening hours for the benefit of the wider community.
I too support the police (and your final sentence Colin).
Colin - the local police vehicles are anything but nice and warm. The last one I sat in was freezing. Mind you, it was a cold morning outside West Suffolk College.
Given the spread of pubs, bars and clubs right across the town centre and beyond, the police need to respond quickly to any emergency and they are not likely to get there on a bike in time unless they start taking some of that stuff the Tour de France riders are on.
Clearly the residents of Whiting Street must now (after the experience of watching David trying to extend the Queens Head licensing hours by quoting geography and Police statistics in his argument) report EVERY 'event' and 'crime' to the Police. I dont think the public really like phoning up to report another damaged hanging basket to Suffolk Constabulary as they know that the paperwork and time wasted is stupid. But CLEARLY we have to protect our interests now versus facile arguments in the Licensing meetings from councilors REPRESENTING PUBS.
SO all the more reason for a physical presence from Police, Deterrence is better than punishment. Only about 5 more 'Events' this weekend fellow residents and it will look like a crimewave, the computers will be buzzing , the cops will arrive and the next time some fillibustering councillor backs a noisy extention to hours the odds will be on our side. But is that the right thing to do???. Not in my book.
So Councillor Nettleton, stop mucking about insulting us in a public meeting ( barrackers are we??? Cheeky s## we elected you) Stop playing games and get them out of the cars and on Whiting Street, where I can assure you the phones will otherwise be buzzing this weekend.To Environmental Health, and to the Police and the Press if we or our kids are woken just one more time.After all, YOU SUPPORT the noisy behaviour, so YOU do something about it
Post a Comment