Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the applicant had tabled a summary of his application and stated that residents had received a copy.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The residents stated that this area was very residential and was very quiet and said that the applicant had stated that he was building a community venture but he had not consulted residents. A resident asked the applicant when the premises would be opening, the capacity of the premises and asked about the business model proposed. Another resident raised concerns about the management of people leaving the venue and was also concerned about people standing outside smoking, drinking and talking.  The resident considered that an extension to the licence downstairs would add to the number of people in the venue.

The applicant stated that the premises held 66 people upstairs.  It was proposed that, by moving the kitchen upstairs the first floor would hold 35 patrons upstairs and the remainder would be downstairs.  There was no proposal to increase capacity. The applicant stated that there was a current 24 hour licence which offered little protection to residents. This was an application for a variation with conditions and if the application was refused, residents would be in a worse position than currently. Planning permission for residential units had been refused and a public house was the only permitted use for the premises. In response to resident concerns, it was proposed that hours be reduced, the garden space would be limited by hours of use and there would be a condition regarding the use of a noise consultant. There would be no underage drinking.  There had been no issues about the designated premises supervisor. The lack of parking in the area was not a licensing concern.  He stated that he would want good relations with residents to be maintained whatever the outcome of the application.

The licensing officer advised that the licence could not be used as a 24 hour licence as the layout of the premises had changed and there would need to be an application for this variation in any event.

In response to questions it was noted that contact details would be provided on posters at the premises, the garden would be closed at 9pm, the numbers of smokers would be limited and a member of staff would manage the outside area. This was a traditional public house and clientele would go downstairs to be more comfortable.  It was noted that the applicant’s business partners had run other premises.

In summary, the residents raised concerns about customers making noise leaving the premises.  It was noted that this was a conservation area and the sash windows were made of very thin glass that could not be changed.  There was a concern that the nature of the area had changed and it had now outgrown a pub.

The applicant stated that the designated premises supervisor had engaged residents through email and remained open to dialogue.  He would provide contact details on a poster displayed in the window of the premises.

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Halliford House, 21 Halliford Street, N1 3HB, be granted:-

a)     To permit the following licensable activities in the basement:-

The sale of alcohol, which may be consumed on and off the premises, Monday to Saturday, 10:00 am to 11pm and Sunday from 12 noon until 10:30 pm, the provision of recorded music, Monday to Sunday from 9am until midnight and the provision of late night refreshment from 11pm to 11:30pm Monday to Saturday.

b)     To vary the deposited plans.

2)       That conditions detailed on pages 65 and 66 of the agenda be applied to the licence.

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 and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from local residents that the premises were in a residential area. The residents were concerned about noise, not only from the outside seating area but also from people leaving the premises and standing around outside smoking, drinking and talking.   Residents were concerned about a potential doubling of the capacity and expressed concern that the applicant had not consulted them and had not made his vision clear.  Residents also expressed concerns about extra vehicle traffic from taxis and about parking problems and access problems on the narrow pavements.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant and his representative that the premises presently has a capacity of 66 upstairs.  His vision was to move the kitchen upstairs to make it open plan and then allow people to move and relax downstairs.  The capacity would not be doubling but would be the same split across two floors.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the applicant had agreed detailed conditions proposed by the noise team and the metropolitan police to promote the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The applicant’s representative pointed out that the premises was already licensed for longer hours than sought under the variation and that granting the variation would actually offer better protection than the current licence.  In particular, conditions were agreed to close the outside area at 9pm, to operate Challenge 25 and to install a sound limiter if necessary.  The applicant stated that he was happy to meet with residents and provided contact details on a poster at the premises.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the variation with the agreed conditions would promote the licensing objectives, especially in light of the current premises licence. The Sub-Committee concluded that the detailed conditions would better address resident’s concerns regarding noise than leaving the licence as it was.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that granting the variation, with the conditions, was proportionate and appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 8 in relation to licensing hours, licensing policy 9 and 10 in relation to standards of management and licensing policy 20 relating to smoking and drinking outside.