Trade slams Brighton saturation zone plan

Police-backed plan for saturation zone in Brighton has been slammed a 'misuse' of council powers

Trade leaders have hit out at plans for the country's largest saturation zone that would cover the whole of central Brighton.

They say the proposal, which came at the request of police and residents groups, is a blanket approach that does not take into account the impact of individual streets.

This week Brighton & Hove City Council released a consultation on the plan, including the police's arguments.

In a saturation zone, anyone who wants a new licence would have to demonstrate that their presence would not hinder the licensing objectives, such as preventing crime and disorder.

The proposed zone for central Brighton covers every road within an area of roughly four square kilometres.

Inspector Bill Whitehead said: "Some people have put forward a suggestion that you could just have it for particular streets where there are a lot of premises. Our view is that's probably not the best approach. While there may not be many premises in the intervening streets, there's a through flow of people during the evening. They move through the area and crime and disorder follows them."

Whitehead said restricting the zone to certain streets would simply encourage operators to relocate to nearby roads. "It would be unworkable," he added.

British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) director of communications Mark Hastings said the move was a "misinterpretation" of the Licensing Act and a "misuse" of the council's powers.

The submission from the BBPA, which is supported by the BII, said: "Most special policy areas we are aware of are confined to streets corresponding with the 'hot spots' in cities or town centres.

"The council should consider carefully the evidence for, and also the impact of, introducing such a large policy area, which could inhibit new applications and business growth."

The submission also said the proposal that "cafe bar style establishments" would "be looked upon favourably and would not be unduly affected by a cumulative impact policy" would be "potentially open to legal challenges".

"Each application in the

special policy area must be treated on its own merits, regardless of the type of prem-ises," the trade groups said.

Greene King Pub Partners also expressed concern in a submission to the council. Commercial director Sue Thomas-Taylor said: "There were some concerns in the way the proposed guidelines appeared to be all-encompassing. Given how varied pubs, clubs, hotels and restaurants are, it is not only fair, but also common sense, that licence applications should always be considered on their own merit and in accordance with Government guidance, not grouped together for a blanket decision, which we fear could be the case with [a saturation zone]".

One operator told the MA: "I have very serious concerns regarding the motivation behind this, which is clearly being promoted by the police. There is a presumption of guilt which runs counter to my notion of justice."

MA legal editor Peter Coulson said: "There's a danger that the police will throw a ring around an area, thinking it will solve problems.

"But it's not fair in terms of licensing policy if within that ring the addition of other premises wouldn't make matters worse."

The consultation into the proposed saturation zone ends on 2 November and the final report on the policy will be discussed by the licensing committee on 22 November.

almr debate: time to drop food

At an ALMR debate in Brighton last week, the motion "If you want to make a profit, forget food!" was carried by 55 votes to 45. The speeches of Peter Hansen, of PC Hansen, and Eddie Passey, of Interpub, in favour of staying wet changed the minds of the audience, who had voted 47-24 against the motion before the debate began. Food-led operators Dan Marlow of Spirit and Hamish Stoddart of Peach Pub Company probably lost the argument when Hansen's team suggested that saturation and over-investment would damage the food market's prospects.

l Turn to the back page for more on the debate