HEADINGLEY NETWORK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

PRESS RELEASE 28.12.02:  


No ‘Arc – angels’ this Christmas!

In brief:

Headingley loses out to those who want to turn it into an extension of the city centre – and pays for the privilege! The Arc applies for – and is granted  - a late alcohol licence. Fifty-three objectors are ignored because of a technicality. Arc Inspirations, the company behind The Arc, The Box and Trio, ask for nearly £1500 in costs and the magistrates agree that the hard-pressed community should pay half of it (£750). Local residents are furious (yet again) and more than ever feel that the law favours business over community.

In more detail:

The community lost out to big money again in the magistrates’ court on December 18th and the law seemed to be powerless to help. The Arc bar in Headingley was opened in the Autumn of 2000 after promises made to the community, the MP (Harold Best) and local councillors that it would be a resource for the whole community – a ‘food-led’ establishment that only served alcohol as an additional service and would not contribute to the increasing anti-social behaviour and low-level crime that is making life intolerable for the local residents. The truth has been far from this idealistic picture – a big pub that serves mainly young people many of whom make noise, vomit or urinate in the street and cause criminal damage to cars and other property as they go home.

On December 18th in the Magistrates’ Court, there was a hearing to establish whether the Arc should be allowed to open for a further hour to sell alcohol on Thursdays Fridays and Saturdays  - and Sundays before Bank Holidays. 53 objections were received by the court, but because the objectors didn’t realise that they needed to send their objections to the applicant as well as the court, they were ruled inadmissible. It didn’t matter that the court had in fact sent the objections on to the applicant, who was therefore not disadvantaged by the omission. It was even pointed out in court that the law does not state that the objections should necessarily be sent ‘directly’ to the applicant.

The Magistrates were unmoved by the pleas of the community and heard the applicant’s solicitor put a case in which he said ‘there are no objections’, although the bench, the applicant and the objectors knew that there were in fact 53 objections. The hearing was preceded by a hearing for a new licence for the Arc, necessary in order to remove a restriction barring it from applying for a late licence. Local residents tried to put their case, but were repeatedly told that evidence of the decline of Headingley was irrelevant. Even an expert witness was told that the magistrates did not want to hear her evidence because it did not relate directly to the Arc.

The Arc now plans to put a dance floor in the upstairs and a ‘DJ booth’.  Lesley Jeffries, chair of Headingley Network community association said ‘It is a funny kind of justice and is very odd that the applicant’s solicitor, well-known to be an expert on licensing law, didn’t warn us that this oversight meant that our evidence could not be heard. To cap it all, because we objected in the only way open to us – in the hearing for the new licence – they then asked for almost  £1500 in costs!  The magistrates awarded £750, which we cannot afford. How are people supposed to be able to afford to defend their right to a peaceful life if the law and its interpreters are always on the side of business? We were accused of scare mongering when we said they wanted to open a nightclub in Headingley. This late licence, the dance floor and the DJ make the Arc a nightclub in everything but name.’

Contact: Lesley Jeffries: Lesley@webbjeff.free-online.co.uk

(See also - Winter 2002 Newsletter )