Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that this item had been deferred from the 1 June.  New conditions 27- 29 had been agreed with the acoustic officer since the report had been published. The police had agreed the hours and conditions.  The noise officer had concerns regarding the acoustic report. and had asked that it be disregarded.

The noise officer reported that, where there was perceived to be a risk of homophobic hate crime, the licensee would need to manage that risk.

The licensing authority stated that there had been engagement prior to the application.  The applicant had stated that they would apply for core hours but when the application was submitted the hours applied for were later hours.  The applicant had met with the residents.  The authority considered that this was a bar and not a nightclub and did not consider that core hours for a nightclub would be appropriate.  The other premises the applicant had in the West End was operated until midnight. The authority was not opposed to the grant of a licence but the hours would need to be reduced.

In response to questions it was reported that, at the residents meeting, the applicant stated that they wanted nightclub hours.  The licensing authority did not consider that the cumulative impact of these hours had been dealt with in the application.  The licensing authority did not consider a social club was the same as a nightclub and did not consider that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of the cumulative impact policy in relation to hours.

The public health authority informed the Sub-Committee that 43% of ambulance related ambulance call outs in the area occurred after 11pm.  This was a cumulative impact area and within a 250m radius of the premises there were 32 alcohol-related callouts between January and December 2016.  They were concerned about the late night impact of this premises in a cumulative impact area.

In response to a question to the public health authority it was noted that they were concerned regarding an 11pm cut off hour based on the collected public health data.

Two local residents and Councillor Gary Poole spoke against the application.  Councillor Poole reported that the applicant had not recognised the cumulative impact policy.  He stated that the proposal for a LGBT club was a smokescreen.  There was no exception to the cumulative impact policy with regard to this premises.  Good management and another premises elsewhere was not a consideration under the policy.  This was a nightclub application and the premises would be adding to the impact in the area.  One resident reported that they had not objected because of the previous problems with the premises or because they wanted to harm nightlife but considered that there needed to be a balance with the needs of residents.  Even though the previous club had closed, residents were still routinely woken up by pub goers and people in cars with loud music. No noise report could indicate this noise.  The premises would have a capacity of over 160 people and would have hours long past midnight.  This would have a negative impact on the area.  He asked the Sub-Committee to balance the application with the amenity of residents.  Another resident raised objections as the application was in a cumulative impact area.  The applicant had not provided evidence that the premises would be an exception to the policy.  An exception may be that the premises was not alcohol led.  This premises had an emphasis on alcohol and not food. Good management should be a minimum standard. The more alcohol the more likelihood of noise from patrons.  The hours were a significant extension to the hours of the premises in Westminster.  There had been no noise survey agreed and there was a high density of residents in this area.  There were no exceptional circumstances relating to this application.

In response to a question it was confirmed that good standards of management were not considered an exception in the policy. 

The applicant’s representative stated that the premises had planning permission.  The application was not a smokescreen for the future. The premises would be run as a social club for the lesbian community.  This was a far cry from the previous premises that was there.  The applicant had met with residents and licensing officers and it was clear that some residents were not happy with an application beyond 11pm.  The applicant had never stated that she would accept these hours but stated that the hours would be looked at.  Conditions and reduced hours had been agreed with the police. There were many gay bars for men but none for women and Titania in Westminster was now closed for redevelopment.  Since it had been closed a number of women had been left isolated and required a similar premises to go to.  This application was for a private members club with a fob key so there would be no waiting outside.  The police, who were the crime and disorder experts, were happy with the application.  The police had sought reviews for the previous premises.  This was more of a nightclub than bar with a dance area downstairs.  The dispersal plan was detailed in the papers.  The cumulative impact was considered to have been addressed in the detailed operating schedule.  It was stated that 98% of patrons would use public transport so would not use cars.  The tube ran throughout the night on Friday and Saturday nights.  There had been no issues regarding drunkenness at the Titania in Westminster. 

In response to questions it was noted that the Westminster premises had operating hours until midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings.  There was concern expressed that these hours were significantly longer for this application with the same business model.  The applicant’s representative stated that there were two other ladies’ venues in Westminster that remained open until 2 or 3 in the morning and patrons could move onto these.  In this Holloway premises there would be no other place for patrons to go. This would be a social club but with a dance area and the same issues applied to the later hours.  It was considered that a later licence was necessary as the patrons would have nowhere else to go and the extra hours were designed for them and their safety.  In response to a question about noise the applicant’s representative stated that the survey had stated that many patrons would get Taxis from the premises.  There would be one door supervisor.  The Sub-Committee raised concerns that the previous premises had more than one door supervisor but could not manage the noise nuisance. The applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that there was a detailed dispersal policy which detailed how the area would be policed by the supervisor.  It was noted that the premises was on a red route. It was noted that the cumulative impact policy had not been addressed in the operating schedule but was detailed in the tabled submission. The words ‘cumulative impact policy’ had not been specifically referred to in the application and the applicant’s representative stated that no blame should be attached to Ms Gibson for that.The relaxation area would have benches around the outside.  The function room contained the dance floor. The applicant’s representative considered that the meeting with residents had been cordial. He understood that some residents would agree the application if normal public house hours had been applied for.  The applicant had gone a long way to meeting residential concerns. The applicant’s representative stated that there had been temporary event notices at the Westminster premises and had no issues.  They would not serve patrons if they appeared drunk.

In summary, the noise officer stated that the applicant had not adequately dealt with the potential impact.  The dispersal policy detailed door supervisors but mentioned only one.  One door supervisor for over 100 patrons did not seem very practical. A residents stated that the applicant had bristled at the meeting with residents and her representative had to calm her down.  The applicant had destroyed the goodwill of residents.  The applicant had stated that 98% of patrons would take the tube but it was noted that from the survey 50% would use taxis or their cars.

The applicant stated that at the residents’ meeting they had put their point of view across.  This application was not a smokescreen but a female venue with the support of the Mayor of London.  There was a concern about safety as masculine looking women were attacked regularly.  This was a genuine bar/social club and they took safety seriously.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Titania, 113 Holloway Road, N7 8LT be refused.

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, particularly regarding policies 2 and 8.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Parkcumulative 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 heard evidence from the responsible authority for public health that the area in which the premises is located had 72 alcohol related ambulance callouts between January and December 2016 and that 43% occurred after 11pm.  The Sub-Committee noted that the responsible authority’s concerns related to the fact that this was a further alcohol led premises proposing to operate after 11pm.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from local residents that even after the closure of the previous business at the premises they were still routinely woken by people passing through the area. People parked cars, played loud music, or were drunk and noisy. The Sub-Committee noted resident concerns that the premises were alcohol led and had a capacity of 160 people.  Residents submitted that there was no noise survey in relation to properties abutting the rear of the premises and that no noise report could reflect what residents heard on a regular basis. The Sub-Committee noted residents’ particular concerns as to the dispersal of patrons and use of taxis as the premises was on a red route. 

The Sub-Committee heard various representations from local residents and a ward councillor as well as public health and the licensing authority in relation to the location of the premises within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  The Sub-Committee noted representations that good management in proposed premises, or the fact that an applicant had previously managed similar premises did not make an application exceptional. The capacity of the premises was considerably higher than that referred to in the policy and the premises were clearly alcohol led. The Sub-Committee noted the licensing authority’s view that the core hours for a nightclub, as set out in the policy, would not be appropriate for the premises as the licensing authority saw the premises as a bar and not a nightclub. 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption that the grant of a new licence for the premises would add to the existing cumulative impact.  The premises were not small premises; the capacity was 160 and it was difficult to see how this number of people leaving the premises late at night would not impact adversely on the area. This would be so regardless of whether the premises closed at midnight, as suggested by the licensing authority, or 2am as requested by the applicant. Although the premises intended to operate as a members’ only club, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the size of the premises, combined with the hours sought and the proposed operation of the premises would impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives, particularly in respect of the prevention of public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee particularly considered paragraph 2.15 of the national guidance which stated that licensing authorities should focus on the effect of the licensable activities on persons living and working in the area around the premises.  The Sub-Committee was persuaded by the concerns of the residents and did not believe that the application showed sufficient detail in relation to the cumulative impact policy. Although the Sub-Committee noted the detailed conditions agreed with the responsible authorities, particularly the noise team, it concluded that the licence, even with the conditions, would add to the existing cumulative impact and that it was therefore appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application.