Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that this application was in the Bunhill cumulative impact area and was currently licensed as Clerkenwell Conference Centre.  A revised application had been made for reduced hours; 10:00 until 22:00 hours seven days a week.  It was noted that the opening hours would also be 10:00 until 22:00 seven days a week.

The licensing authority advised that they had made no representation as they did not consider that the application would add to the cumulative impact area.

The local residents were concerned about the volume of business the premises would attract.  The restaurant was open to the public and would cause noise and they did not understand the need for a licence for an office.  This was a highly built up residential area.  They stated that the restaurant would seat 70 people and in the bar, 50 people who would not be members of the office premises.  There was one revolving door which would need to accommodate 500/600 people.  This door was two meters away from their own building and there had been no investigation into noise levels, the amount of people leaving the building and people smoking near the premises. 

The local residents did not consider that the applicant had put forward any measures to prevent crime and disorder, public safety and children from harm. They’d been no assurances that there would not be future applications and they did not understand why the application was necessary.  There had been a large number of public representations. 

The licensing officer reported that a letter had been sent to all interested parties on the 22 September advising of the revised application.

The applicant’s representative advised that efforts had been made to contact residents groups but they had been advised that there were none.  The hours were from 10:00 to 22:00 hours only.  Music would be background only. Patrons would access the premises via a revolving door and a concierge.   A plan of the premises was tabled. It was noted that Area A, was conditioned that alcohol would only be sold to those seated and having a table meal. Area B was a community/cafe area.  There were three further limited off sales areas marked on the plan, Areas C, D and E.  The applicant stated that there would be a maximum of 400 people in the building.  They wanted to encourage people to stay in the building with ideas such as yoga, virtual PAs.  Members could have a business meeting, go to the restaurant and have a glass of wine. On another day staff could invite their spouses/partners to the premises to meet colleagues.  The restaurant was to be run by a restauranteur and was not a chain.  If the licence was granted then if the previous licence was transferred it could then be surrendered.  There were no objections from the responsible authorities.  It was hoped that residents would use the restaurant.  They had spent a year looking for the right operator of the restaurant.  His other restaurants were also in residential areas.  This was a business in the style of the future in which much had been invested.

In response to questions, the applicant’s representative stated that Area B was not a bar but had a bar in it.  This was an area where people would only 50 people would be seated.  Patrons would have to walk by an office lobby. They could come for a talk and could share ideas.  This would be service driven.  People would not be allowed to continuously drink as it was in the lobby area of the business.  It was proposed that Areas A and B would also be open to the public.  There would be a relaxed work vibe. Members of the public could attend the restaurant/bar areas.  The restauranteur wanted to bring a great restaurant to the space.  He had four restaurants.  The Chair stated that this type of restaurant would be a sought after venue.  The restauranteur stated that all his restaurants were different.  The quality would be the same but the environment different. It was expected that lunches in the bar would cost approximately £6 - £10. Meals in the restaurant would be in the region of £30-£50.  There would be 1½ hour sittings. The bar was seated and there could be a condition regarding table service.  There were no pints.  The café area was not alcohol led but workspace led.  The applicant would just like the facility to sell alcohol.  The lobby would need to be kept clear.  There would be desks in the middle of the area. The main door would be covered for 24 hours with a night porter when the restaurant was closed. Alcohol would be ancillary to food in the restaurant.  In the café, the applicant would want people to come in and just to have a drink after work.  In Area A, patrons would have to be seated and eating a table meal.  It was agreed to have waitress/waiter service if required. The Sub-Committee were asked to consider Area B on a basis of 50 people and not alcohol led. The applicant stated that they had considered whether or not the bar area should only be used for members and their guests. It was stated that the area did not look like a bar.  They wished the local community to be able to use the space.  They were confident that the bar would have no impact.  The applicant considered that it would be unfair if non-members could not be served a drink just because they were unable to afford the membership fee.

The Chair noted that the Licensing Authority had not made a representation but asked if they had altered their view of the application after hearing the evidence. The licensing authority stated that the bar area was limited in number, was also not alcohol led and was within hours detailed in the policy.  It was also noted that the film aspect of the original application was incidental and would not require a licence.

The local residents reported that the bar area would hold 50 people and the restaurant would hold 70 which allowed over 150 people and members to have access to office areas up until 2am.  It was stated that the applicant had not mentioned anything about their events.  They had not talked about public nuisance.  There was no separate exit door and the entrance of the main building was 2 metres away from their own building.  Smoking would be outside premises and there had been no consideration of the sound impact.  They believed that there would be public nuisance. There was a small café across the road that patrons could use.  The residents asked that there be no future applications and were concerned that there would be public access to the building when there was a community centre opposite. 

The applicant’s representative stated he was unable to give an assurance for future applications but if there were any applications, residents would be able to comment in the normal manner.  The premises were to be serviced offices with ancillary use for a restaurant and bar which they would like local people to use.  There had been no objections from the responsible authorities.  The proposed hours were well within core hours and it was considered that the application was an exception to policy as this was a small premises with 50 people or less and was not alcohol led.  They agreed to a condition regarding waiter/waitress service if required.  The applicant’s representative considered that, with the type of premises and conditions the Sub-Committee could grant the licence in its entirety.  However, if the Sub-Committee was considering refusal of the licence, he asked that they consider the individual areas separately ie Areas C, D and E, Area A and Area B.

RESOLVED

1)       That the amended application for a new premises licence, in respect of For a Space, Ground Floor, 71 Central Street EC1V 8BU, be granted to allow:-

a)     The supply of alcohol, for consumption on and off  the premises from 10:00 until 22:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

b)     The premises to be open to the public from 10:00 until 22:00 Monday to Sunday.

2)       That conditions detailed on pages 110 and 111 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the following additions:-

·        There will be table service in the area marked A.

·        Alcohol sales in the area marked B shall only be to members of Fora and their guests.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance, particularly paragraph 13.30, and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Bunhill cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee also noted policy 18 for the protection of amenity for residents.

The Sub-Committee was invited to consider the application in three parts, C D and E, B and A by the applicant’s representative rather than reject the whole application.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting a licence for areas C D and E, the internal meeting rooms, would be unlikely to add to the existing cumulative impact on the area on any of the licensing objectives. 

The Sub-Committee noted that Area A, the restaurant, was to be a highly professional enterprise.  The applicant suggested an additional condition of table service in Area A and the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule, with the addition of the condition, demonstrated that there would be no negative impact on any of the licensing objectives if Area A was granted.

For Area B, the Sub-Committee considered that this area bore more resemblance to a bar than a café and noted the representation of residents that effectively the public would be entering both Area A and B by a single door. The Sub-Committee was concerned about the negative impact on the licensing objectives of noise and public nuisance given the close proximity of residential premises with children.  However, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the conditions in the operating schedule, with the additional restriction that alcohol should only be sold to members and guests, demonstrated that there would be no negative cumulative impact on any of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered that the presumption of a special policy had been rebutted with the addition of conditions for Areas A and B.