A MALDON landlord defended what happened at his pub in lockdown as councillors reviewed his premises licence this afternoon (Monday, 28 September).

The application to review the license of The Jolly Sailor pub in Church Street was made by Maldon District Council's (MDC's) Environmental Health Department and was heard by MDC's Licensing Sub Committee. The licensees are Alan and Kerry Brett, with Mr Brett the designated premises supervisor.

Maldon District Council's lead specialist for community, Damien Ghela, told the sub-committee that the council had first become aware of issues at The Jolly Sailor on 18 May, 2020 – at the height of the pandemic. He said that there was extensive refurbishment work going on at the pub at the time and so two marquees selling alcohol and food had at that time been erected on the area of the pub known as "the upper deck".

Background to the review of The Jolly Sailor's licence

Complaints from members of the public and councillors concerned a lack of social distancing, litter nuisance, lack of PPE worn by pub staff and anti-social behaviour of gathered pub customers.

Mr Ghela added: "Things were investigated and engagement was attempted first. We did carry out additional patrols and offered guidance to Mr Brett.

"At a time when most premises were shut – it was the only draw in town for that area of the Hythe Quay – so we do believe there was a causal link there. We did offer advice and we did look at additional ways including looking at public space protection orders.

"In summary, we believe that the serving areas of the upper deck acted as a draw to people seeking alcohol and food at this time."

"But we continued to receive public complaints. We believe that we will continue to receive complaints and that additional licence conditions will help improve the safety of local people and passers-by during the pandemic."

Points from the report by MDC's environmental health department were summarised by Mr Ghela as follows:

• The availability of alcohol led to an increase in litter
• There was drunken and anti-social behaviour at Hythe Quay, including people trying to board moored boats and urinating in public
• Social distancing guidelines were not adhered to
• Pub staff were not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) sufficiently.

Mr Ghela added: "The Jolly Sailor's adherence to government advice was very loose."

"There was an allegation that loud music was played and that this helped to draw people within an area with a party atmosphere. The Hythe is a popular walk-through for families and children and the council considers that this represented an increased risk to children and young families passing through the area."

The response from The Jolly Sailor

Ian Seeley, representing The Jolly Sailor, asked how many individuals were involved in complaints and Mr Ghela replied that it was more than four separate complaints.

Mr Seeley said: "Mr Brett has been licensee of The Jolly Sailor for 31 years with no previous complaints against him."

He added that the changes on May 13 meant that the complaints were not at the "very height" of the lockdown period.

Mr Seeley said: "The Hythe is a picturesque and popular area that was going to attract people when they were let out again. The Jolly Sailor has no jurisdiction when people leave its premises.

He added: "We don't accept that no other premises were open at this period."

Mr Seeley then went on to say there were five nearby refreshment outlets open around the lake area at Promenade Park, a seafood outlet selling alcohol, an ice cream van and other numerous premises open in the High Street.

He believed there was insufficient investigation of where the people behaving anti-socially had come from and he also claimed that photographic evidence of littering to the committee was inconclusive, as the pictures did not show where the litter had come from. He said he was concerned that there had been no full investigation by either the police or council to establish any "causal link" between The Jolly Sailor and the anti-social behaviour described.

Mr Seeley also argued that the police could have made representations to the sub-committee's review, despite the application having been copied to them and that there were other actions that both the council and police could have taken to resolve any issues at The Jolly Sailor, but had opted not to. He said that in a discussion with a PCSO on May 26, licensee Mr Brett had offered the pub's extensive CCTV footage for examination, but that the offer was not taken up.

Mr Seeley added: "There were no fixed penalty notices issued and no Dispersal Orders exercised."

Mr Ghela said that at the time police decided that they were concerned they might not be able to resource the policing of a Dispersal Order – and that a Public Space Protection Order "would have taken months to put in place, rather than weeks".

Mr Seeley also argued that three months on, signage on Hythe Quay that the council had promised to provide to remind the public about social distancing, littering and behaviour had not been put in place and Mr Ghela accepted this criticism.

Speaking to the sub-committee, publican Mr Brett said: "We don't have trouble down there.

"We have zero tolerance of drugs and underage drinking and the neighbours who have complained have a grudge to settle. I saw people coming out of First Stop with cans of beer. We were controlled – I couldn't control what was going on on the quay. We saw people walking along with cases of beer.

"The fight that happened was over a dog and ex-girlfriend – it was nothing to do with us. There was a funeral and they gathered together on the quayside. When we saw what was happening we stopped it.

"We had our boys and girls going out every hour so with black sacks and picking up the litter. All our music is background music and we've never played loud music."

The licensing sub-committee's conclusion

The licensing sub-committee meets in private to decide the outcome of the review.

The licensee will be notified of the outcome within five working days and magistrates will hear any appeal against any decision made.