Agenda item

The interested parties stated that although conditions had been agreed with the police this did not address the issue of cumulative impact. They said that the premises were a chain operation and the planning application had stated that they made food off site and reheated it.  They considered that a meal sold at £5 - £6.50 could not be considered a substantial meal.  They did not believe that the tables and chairs outside were licensed.  The area for seating outside was unsuitable as it was narrow.  Alcohol hours should be restricted if granted but a licence was not appropriate for that site.  The premises were too small for 8 people standing.  If the licence was granted from 8am to 8pm with standing this would determine the use for the future.  Residents lived nearby and there would be alcohol served to people on the benches outside and a total of 9 people at the tables and chairs.  Residents asked the applicant if they could see the licence for the tables and chairs.  The strength of alcohol had not been addressed.  There was not another 12 hour licence in Camden Passage and the hours were considered excessive.  It was considered that there should be no drinking outside, no off sales and no vertical drinking. There was nothing to restrict a breakfast club or 5-7 happy hour.  It was considered that this was just the wrong application in this area.  It was stated that any additional licence would add to the existing impact. Camden Passage already had 10-12 licensed premises and no further licences should be granted.  It was considered that the business was a useful addition to the area but did not need alcohol.  There should be clear restrictions for off sales if granted.

The applicant understood the concern about the cumulative impact.  There was a chain of Crepe Affairs and the majority of them sold alcohol with food. This would not be a bar but would sell low alcohol ciders/wine and beer and exclusively with the sale of a crepe. All measures for the sale of alcohol would be in place. Staff would be well trained.  There had never been any problems at other premises.  It was at the discretion of staff to refuse alcohol to customers who were already drunk.  Binge drinking would be prohibited.  He was sympathetic to the concerns regarding the early morning hour and offered a start time of 11:30am to 12 noon.  When the market was open there would be no serving of alcohol to the benches.  The premises would be managed in a sensible manner.  Staff would try to avoid customers from being drunk.  Customers would not be allowed to bring their own alcohol. Staff would be trained to avoid the cumulative impact.  He would want to be a friendly neighbour. 

In response to questions the applicant stated that they would not serve customers if they were drunk.  This was a small premises and all customers could be seen.  Staff would call the police if necessary although they had never had alcohol related problems.  This was a French concept and galettes were often served with a glass of wine or small bottles of beer or cider in France.  The premises would be selling a limited range of alcohol and drinks would be limited to one. He considered that there should be fewer than 8 people standing, perhaps 4 or 5.  The majority of customers would have a non-alcoholic drink. The applicant stated that there were 35 seats inside with 3 customers on the benches and 9 at the tables and chairs.  They were happy with the location and there would be no reason to leave this area soon.  The business had a long term objective in mind. He did not consider that the business was a financial challenge if alcohol was not sold but this was a French concept and other locations did sell alcohol with crepes. He stated that there was always more than one member of staff in the premises except when the premises were first opened in the morning.  He did have a policy for the management of the external tables. Alcohol for off sales would be ancillary to hot food.

In summary, the local residents considered that there would be about 59 covers including those on the outside tables and 8 vertical drinkers on the premises. Residents were fairly sure that the outside tables did not have permission and considered that the Sub-Committee needed the correct facts.  The applicant had only just received retrospective planning permission.  There was a cumulative impact on residents and premises were unable to control all customers.  Drinkers had already been seen on the benches which indicated that management was already not being strict enough.  Any further alcohol in the area added to the existing level and the Sub-Committee were asked to take the cumulative impact zone seriously. The applicant stated this was a concept and would be well controlled. He stated that staff would monitor the use of the benches in the future. He appreciated the cumulative impact zone but would ensure that the correct controls would be applied. 

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Crepe Affair, 47-53 Camden Passage, N1 8EA be granted to allow:-

a)     The sale of alcohol, for consumption on and off the premises from 11:30 am until 20:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

2)       That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on page 51 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the following amendments:-

Condition 8 to read.  There shall be no vertical drinking in the venue save for a maximum of 4 persons waiting to be seated for a full table meal.

Additional condition.  During any period where there are licensable activities at the premises, staff shall regularly monitor the outside area to ensure that there is no public nuisance caused by the use of the outside seating.

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 took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall within the Angel and Upper Streetcumulative 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 noted that the applicant had agreed conditions with the metropolitan police.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from local residents that any new alcohol licence would add to cumulative impact in the area.  Residents were concerned about the seated area in the narrow passage and stated that people had been seen drinking wine on the benches outside the premises. Residents were also concerned that the premises could offer a happy hour or unlimited drinks offers. The Sub-Committee noted residents’ concerns that the premises were totally inappropriate for a 12 hour licence.  Residents also expressed concern regarding noise and a rise in anti-social behaviour.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that he runs a number of crêperies, the majority of which sell alcohol in conjunction with food.  The applicant emphasised that the premises was not a bar and would only sell low alcohol ciders, beer and wines exclusively with the sale of crepes. The applicant stated that his staff were well trained and know when to intervene and not to sell to people who are intoxicated. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant offered reduced hours with a start time of 11.30am. The applicant also offered an amended condition of only four or five vertical drinkers waiting for tables. The applicant stated that 95% of drinks sold were non-alcoholic. The applicant confirmed that there would never be only one member of staff on duty and that he had a policy for the oversight of the external tables.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 8.  The Sub-Committee further noted that the premises had less than 50 covers and were not alcohol led and so fell within the exception set out in licensing policy 2. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that with the reduced hours, conditions relating to vertical drinking and the sale of alcohol as ancillary to a meal, together with an additional condition relating to the use of the outside area, the licensing objectives would be promoted.

 The Sub-Committee concluded that the management of the premises was of a sufficiently high standard that with the hours and conditions attached, the premises would not adversely impact on the cumulative area or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

When making their decision the Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 2 in relation to cumulative impact, licensing policy 8 in relation to licensing hours and licensing policy 10 in relation to high standards of management.