Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the application for Sunday had been withdrawn to keep hours in line with the planning consent.

One local resident reported that he was objecting to the variation for four reasons.  The premises were in a cumulative impact area and there were only limited circumstances for the licence to be permitted, there were a large number of restrictions in the original licence which would not be on this one, there had been many issues since the premises had been operating and at a previous meeting the applicant had given an assurance that this licence would not be extended.  He stated that, at a previous meeting the applicant wanted to serve alcohol until 3 or 4 am.  These premises were in a cumulative impact area with a large number of families with one entrance only.  Patrons would leave in large groups that were noisy and there were insulation problems with the accommodation at Worcester Point.  The resident circulated photographs which he stated showed patrons drinking outside the premises which was a breach of licence conditions.  Staff smoked beneath their balconies until midnight and some patrons were seen leaving at 11.40pm despite the opening hours being until 10pm.  He stated that a neighbour had been stared at by members of staff and she had felt fearful. He was concerned about the number of hearings that had been held and the piecemeal manner of the grant of the licence.

In response to questions it was noted that all conditions from the previous grant of the licence would remain on the licence if granted.  It was noted that the opening hours of the rest of the building were later than 10:30pm.  The resident stated that patrons were drinking outside windows later than 10:30pm.  The resident stated that he had not spoken to the manager about the problems with people smoking outside the entrances but had spoken to the administration desk.  The applicant stated that they had not realised there were any problems with noise from smokers until they had seen the objections to the application.  The resident stated that he had complained to the licensing team.  The licensing officer confirmed that the premises had been visited and no problems had been witnessed. The resident stated that he was concerned about people shouting, fighting and smoking outside the residents’ flats.  One resident stated that they had spoken to either Fora or the restaurant and they said they would ask staff not to use the side doors.  She had seen chefs standing in the door entrance who had been speaking very loudly. The resident did not think that staff would tell management about complaints if they were causing the problems themselves.  The resident stated that customers did not leave until 11.30pm currently, as evidenced by the photographs, and the applicant had requested a half hour extension.  The Sub-Committee noted that as the office shut later than the restaurant it could not be confirmed where the people were leaving from.  The applicant’s representative stated that the alcohol displayed in the photos had not been purchased from the restaurant and staff were unable to bring their own alcohol into the building. The resident stated that a large number of people had been photographed sitting in the restaurant at 11.14pm and they had not left until 11.40pm.

The applicant’s representative reported that the licensing committee granted hours for the restaurant until 10pm to fit in with the planning consent. There had been 30/40 objections to the previous application and Katrina Larkin, the co-founder of Fora Space, had given residents her email for complaints.  Since this grant she had not received a single complaint from residents.  Her office was in the premises.  The licensing team had visited on at least two occasions and no breaches had been found.  There was a multi purpose working space, an internal members bar area and a restaurant at the front of the premises.  This application related just to the restaurant area.  He believed the opening hours for the offices were 24 hours.  The Planning Committee varied the hours to 11pm and this application was to bring the hours into line with the planning consent.  The hours fell within the core hours detailed in licensing policy 8 and the premises was not alcohol led.  All those who had made representations had been emailed and no response had been received.  The objections for this application had been reduced to 11 people from the previous application.  Regarding the photographs tabled by the resident the bin bags indicated did not belong to the restaurant and the bottle shown was not sold in the restaurant.  Tills were turned off at 10pm.  There had been no police objections, this was a well respected restaurant and there were no objections from the licensing authority, who had visited.  Staff were not allowed to smoke in the front door entrance.  It was accepted that there was a family party on the 29 June who had stayed beyond licensing hours but was in line with planning consent.  The applicant did not accept there had been fighting or large numbers of patrons outside.  They would work with residents.  They had received no response from the objectors present at the meeting.  He did not accept that the restaurant caused nuisance.

In response to questions the applicant stated that the offices were open from 7am until midnight on Monday to Friday and 9am to 9pm on Saturdays.  The office building was open 24 hours. There was a limited capacity with 153 people in occupation.  People were recognised and looking at the photographs these were not office workers.  There was SIA security at the front of the building and they asked people to move on. This was a new business and they were aware that if they did not comply with licences they would not get a licence variation.  There was an off licence to cover alcohol sales for the board room and two meeting rooms. There was a bar area for Fora residents. There was a revolving door at the main entrance with a reception desk. The bar area had hours until 10pm.  The applicant was only aware of the problems caused by smokers once representations had been received.  There were usually only two to three people smoking.  There was a concierge by the door at night and no incidents had been logged.  The problem raised about smokers could easily be resolved.  There were 70 covers in the restaurant.  The applicant stated that she was often at the premises from 7am until midnight as it was a new business. The maximum number of smokers allowed outside were 6 from the restaurant.  Smokers from the office building were not under her control.  There would be 70 people leaving the restaurant throughout the evening, which was not a large number.  Patrons would be not be causing a nuisance. The applicant stated that she could reinforce to residents the need to leave the area quietly in a weekly newsletter.  If staff behaviour was unacceptable they would be informed. 

In summary, the local residents stated that the licence should not be granted as this was in a cumulative impact area, conditions had not been observed and applications were being made piecemeal.  He stated that the applicant had not spoken to him and they did not have his email.  There was no planning permission for planters or signage.  He was able to show a video of fighting outside the premises.

The applicant’s representative stated that this application was within policy hours and was not alcohol led.  The application was for the restaurant only.  Conditions from the previous licence would remain on the licence. The applicant would liaise with residents. There had been no objections from the police or licence authority.  The smoking issue had been addressed and any problems with dispersal would be addressed.  The bins were not from the restaurant and nor was the beer seen in the photos. 

RESOLVED

That the premises licence variation in respect of the restaurant at Fora Space, 71 Central Street, EC1V 8BU be granted:-

a)     To increase the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol, on and off sales, from 10 am to 10.30pm Monday to Saturday.

b)     Opening hours to be – 10am to 11pm Monday to Saturday.

REASONS FOR THE 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 noted Licensing Policy 1 and that the premises were located in an area of cumulative impact with residential premises in close proximity.  No representations had been received from the responsible authorities. However, a number of residents were deeply concerned that there would be an impact as a result of the extension of licensing hours.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 2, and home office guidance 13.30-13.38.  The premises fall within the Bunhillcumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations to 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 noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 8 and the extension of licensing hours was by half an hour, by premises that were a restaurant and not ‘alcohol led’. The extension of opening hours until 11pm seemed sensible to allow a more gradual dispersal. In the circumstances and after careful consideration of the objections raised by the residents and the responses by the applicant, the Sub-Committee concluded that this variation of the premises licence would be unlikely to add to the existing cumulative impact on the licensing objectives in that area.  Granting the variation was appropriate to the licensing objectives and proportionate.

Note of the Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee were concerned regarding the smoking area and the dispersal of customers and would ask the applicant to review their policy on this matter.  The Sub-Committee also asked that the applicant liaise with the objectors on a regular basis.