Judge rejects "iron curtain" approach to cumulative impact policy

The sub-committee at Leeds City Council had refused Brewdog, a Scottish brewer of craft beers, a licence on the basis that it could not trade without problems in the stress area and the hotspot near the Corn Exchange in particular.

Brewdog, which runs bars in seven cities across England and Scotland without police objection, appealed.

The brewer’s counsel, Philip Kolvin QC of Cornerstone Barristers, argued that the company would trade differently compared to local nightclubs selling cheap alcohol.

The clientele of the venue would also be more mature and discerning, he added.

The police acknowledged that Brewdog’s customers were unlikely to be the cause of crime and disorder, but expressed concern at the rise in footfall in the area. They also said that customers could be the victims of crime.

District Judge Anderson upheld the appeal. He said: “It cannot be the policy of the Cumulative Impact Policy to bring the iron curtain clanging down to allow such clubs to continue to trade while shutting out Brewdog which attracts more discerning customers who do not engage in binge drinking, though I do accept the requirement of the Cumulative Impact Policy is to ascertain specifically whether there will be impact.”

The judge concluded that the people likely to be attracted to Brewdog were “not ‘get it down the neck’ drinkers but rather better heeled customers”.

He added that the type of clientele a premises attracted had a material part to the play in the decision. “[If] I am not worried about their clientele and am impressed by the running of their bars elsewhere, it follows that it is unlikely that their clientele will have any adverse impact on the area here.”

District Judge Anderson said that the police's argument that the customers could get caught up in a melee caused by others was not a valid one. A simple increase in footfall was not a rational reason to refuse Brewdog entry to Leeds, he added.

The District Judge said: “I accept that the committee and the police did their best but their application of the Policy was too rigid. They seemed to take the view that man was made for the policy, when the Policy should be made for man.”

Kolvin was instructed by Kuits Steinart Levy.