Agenda item

The Licensing Officer pointed out that an amendment was required to page 10 of the agenda to reflect the fact that no representations had been received from local Ward councillors, rather than “Three local ward Councillors” as stated in the report. An amendment was also required to the final line of condition 2c on page 97 of the agenda by the deletion of the final sentence “Notwithstanding…….meal”. Conditions 16 – 18, detailed on page 98 of the agenda, and proposed by the Metropolitan Police, had been agreed by the applicant. However, condition 19 had not been agreed.  He referred to the fact that a previous provisional statement application dating back to June 2017 had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Sub-Committee where it was to be determined.

 

The Police representative added that the question mark in condition 18 should be replaced with “15% of the floor area” and that this had been agreed by the applicant. In addition, referring to condition 19 relating to a full half hour drinking up time, which the applicant had not agreed, as this was a provisional statement, there were no crime figures available although the premises was in a cumulative impact area. A condition relating to drinking up time would be relevant and was a well established procedure. Drinking up time allowed a gradual exodus from a premises and prevented numbers of people leaving en masse.

 

The applicant’s representative noted that no written submission had been made by the Council’s Noise Team.

 

The Licensing Authority’s representative highlighted the fact that the premises was situated in a cumulative impact area and that this had not been addressed in the application. There had been no attempt to address the Licensing Authority’s representations until this afternoon. Furthermore, the Licensing Authority did not think the application should be granted outside of planning consent hours ie 23:00 hours. The Licensing Authority supported the condition proposed by the Police for a drinking up time.

 

The applicant’s representative noted that Councillor Poole had been due to chair this meeting.  He had not submitted a written representation and, if he was at this meeting to represent a resident, advance notice should have been given.  The Licensing Officer replied by saying that the Licensing Team had been made aware on the previous day that Councillor Poole would be speaking on behalf of local residents.  In response to a question from the Chair, the Legal Officer confirmed that there was no obstacle to Councillor Poole putting forward the representations of residents, but he could not make representations in a personal capacity.  In response to a question from the Chair, Councillor Poole confirmed that he was present to represent the views of residents. In response to a question from the applicant’s representative as to whether Sub-Committee members had discussed the matter with Councillor Poole, the Chair confirmed that there had been no such discussions and the only matter he had discussed with Councillor Poole was about the arrangements for chairing of the meeting.

 

Councillor Poole, representing residents, stated that there was almost unprecedented community representation at this evening’s meeting, with around 30 local residents present. This spoke volumes for the fear of residents.  There was likely to be a significant increase in the impact on the community, if this application was granted. The applicant appeared to riding roughshod over the cumulative impact area provision in the Council’s Licensing Policy.

 

One of the residents stated that there was likely to be more noise and anti-social behaviour on Friday and Saturday nights if the application was granted. The area

was already saturated. Licensing applications for this area were coming in frequently, including one for a premises called Humble Grape, which came through for consultation during the holiday period.   Under the Council’s Licensing Policy, applicants had to demonstrate why their application would not impact on the cumulative impact area and he could not see anything in the papers supplied to the Sub-Committee to this effect.  The area had reached saturation. Another resident said that this was a speculative appeal and that the area was already saturated with off licences. Another resident added that there was no justification for a new licence and that there would be added noise in the area and issues associated with dispersal of patrons from licensed premises.  The hours being sought should be reduced as there could be considerable noise in the mornings, with deliveries etc, if the premises were permitted to open at 8.00am.  It appeared that, as the application had progressed, it had changed to a bar by stealth.

 

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, the Licensing Officer confirmed that off sales of alcohol had been removed from this application.

 

The applicant’s representative stated that he had not replied to the Licensing Authority or the Police’s representations as he had been attending hospital appointments over the past month. However, addressing the representations received, the cumulative impact area issue had not been addressed in this application as it had been addressed in two previous applications.  The reason for the withdrawal of the application from a previous Sub-Committee agenda was simply because they had overlooked the need to advertise their intention to apply for a licence in a local newspaper.  The capacity of the premises would be under 100 persons. The hours of operation were within the framework hours. If a condition was added to the licence for the sale of alcohol to cease half an hour before closing time to allow for drinking up, this would mean that the premises would have to close at 10.30pm on Thursdays.  He maintained that the licence holder was bound by the hours granted by planning consent.

 

He suggested that the addition of a condition for a 30 minute drinking up time, meaning the premises would close at 10.30pm, was artificially early for a restaurant, noting that a previous Sub-Committee had not imposed a condition to this effect. He suggested that the premises was an exception to the Cumulative Impact Area as it was within operating hours and was a restaurant. The conditions proposed by the applicant had been submitted with the application. An additional condition had been offered by the applicant “Entrance or exit from the premises after 20:00 hours on any day shall be from Upper Street only”. He could provide details of the users, but the conditions were more important. It was expected that the end user of the premises would be an Italian restaurant.  The premises would open for coffee and croissants at 8.00am.  Most of the other representations received related to planning issues and not relevant for this meeting.

 

A Member of the Sub-Committee asked the applicant’s representative about what the premises operators would be bringing to the area.  The applicant’s representative said that the site was a former Post Office sorting office and that £400m had been spent by the developers on this mixed use scheme. There would be three restaurants in a small footprint.  Drinks would be served with meals in the restaurants and the opening hours were all within the council’s framework hours.  He added that these matters had been addressed at a previous meeting of the Sub-Committee.

 

Another Member of the Sub-Committee asked about the applicant’s communication with residents, especially over possible noise nuisance.  The applicant’s representative said that, during the planning process, there had been consultation with residents and extensive correspondence.  This was a massive mixed use development and the addition of one small restaurant was unlikely to add to noise in the vicinity.  In response to a question as to how they would respond to complaints from residents about noise, the applicant’s representative said that the applicant would be happy to have lines of communication open and that the manager’s telephone number would be made available to residents and/or s/he could attend bi-annual meetings etc.  The applicant added that he had been involved in the planning of the development. There had been regular communications with residents and newsletters and this would continue to completion of the development.  There was a very small percentage of restaurants in this development compared to elsewhere, less than 10% in this development, compared to 30% in other developments. This was a managed development, with 24 hour security and CCTV.

 

A member of the Sub-Committee pointed out that, on the first occasion when an application from this premises had been considered by the Sub-Committee, only two restaurants had been expected in the development. This application would bring the total up to three restaurants. Planning consent had been granted for operational hours up to 23:00 hours, seven days a week, and the new proposed terminal hour in this latest application was for midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, taking it outside the permitted hours under Planning consent. The Sub-Committee member queried why extended hours were being sought now.  The applicant’s representative replied that, if it was thought appropriate at a future date, the applicant could apply to vary the planning consent to match framework hours. The Sub-Committee member asked why this had not already been done, since they had already agreed a terminal hour of 23:00 hours with Planning.  The applicant’s representative said that it was something they were considering and they could apply at a future date.  The applicant pointed out that the operator of the premises was not actually in the premises yet and may not want extended hours.  The applicant’s representative said that they might consider applying for planning consent for later hours to match the licensing hours. The previous Sub-Committee had found the circumstances exceptional (to the Licensing Policy) and the applicant would not have applied now, if the previous application had not been granted.

 

A member of the Sub-Committee noted that there was no tenant in the premises yet. He asked the applicant’s representative to address the cumulative impact area issues raised in the Licensing Authority’s representation and asked why he maintained that there would be no adverse impact by virtue of an additional premises having an alcohol licence in this development.

 

The applicant’s representative said that most Licensing Policies disregarded the quality of a premises operator, since they could change. This was a small premises, where patrons would be seated, it would be food lead , with alcohol ancillary, was already controlled through CCTV and was unlikely to add to the cumulative impact area. They were not applying to run a bar.

 

A member of the Sub-Committee referred to the Police’s representation relating to the proposed addition of a drinking up time and asked the applicant’s representative whether he considered the ordering of last drinks by a certain time to allow for the closing of the premises at the terminal hour a good idea?  The applicant’s representative agreed that this would be a good idea for the bar.  He would press for a 15 minute drinking up time if necessary.   The Licensing Officer had asked him why they had not applied for a terminal licensing hour of 23:30, if they wanted to close at 23:00 hours, but the applicant’s representative said that they it would not be possible to do this since the terminal hour under Planning consent was 23:00 hours.

 

The Police representative suggested a compromise of a 20 minute drinking up time. The Licensing Officer suggested that, if no more than 100 people were permitted on the premises, condition 6 could be amended to permit no more than 10 smokers outside the premises at any one time.

 

A residents’ representative noted that the access on Studd and Moon Streets would not be physically closed and queried who would stop people going into the restaurant.  It was not workable. The cumulative impact area issues were not retrospective. This premises were in the Angel and Upper Street Cumulative Impact Area and there had been no attempt by the applicant to state why this application could be considered exceptional.  Neither was it appropriate to consider the decision of the Sub-Committee which had last considered this.  There had been nothing from the licensee about the possible impact on residents’ lives.

 

The applicant’s representative asked the Sub-Committee to consider this application on its merits. A restaurant operating within framework hours would not add to the cumulative impact on the area. The premises were not alcohol lead and he maintained that there would be zero impact on the community if the application was granted.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application for a provisional statement in respect of Unit G7A, 6G Esther Anne Place, London, N1 1WL be granted to allow:

 

1)         The on- sale of alcohol, from 10 am until 10.40pm, Monday to Sunday.

. 

2)         Opening hours to be from 8am until 11pm from Monday to Sunday

 

Conditions detailed on pages 97 and 98 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence, subject to the following:

Condition 2b  – add “non-alcoholic” before the word “drink”

Condition 2c – delete words in final sentence “Notwithstanding……..their meal”

Delete condition 3

Condition 6 – amend to read “ No more than 10 people shall be permitted to smoke,,,,,”

Condition 18 -  amend line 2 after the word “of” to read “ up to a maximum at any one time of 15% of the approved capacity, or a maximum of 15 people.

 

Condition 19 – amend to read “The sale of alcohol will cease 20 minutes before closing time to allow for drinking up”

 

Plus two new conditions – add:

-Clear signage to be displayed on the outside and inside of the premises, providing telephone contact details (land line and mobile telephone numbers) and email addresses of the manager of the development and the operator of the premises

-The capacity of the premises to be limited to a maximum of 100 people

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 Street 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 took into consideration Licensing Policy 6 which states that

the Licensing Authority expects applicants to ensure that they have planning consent for the intended hours of operation before making an application for a premises licence. The Licensing Authority will only grant licences for premises without planning consent in exceptional circumstances.  The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had approved A3 use for the premises which shall not operate under the conditions of the planning authorisation except between the hours of 08:00 and 23:00 on any day.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the application was for on sales only and the representation from the Licensing Authority that drinking up time should be within the hours authorised by the Planning authority.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the interested parties and their concerns about the proximity of the premises to residential dwellings.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the indication from the applicant that the capacity of the premises would be up to 100 patrons and that the premises would not be alcohol –led. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was willing to accept a condition limiting the capacity of the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that there had been discussions between the Police and the applicant and that the Police were willing to accept a 20 minutes drinking up time for the whole restaurant.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the premises were not likely to add to the existing cumulative impact on the basis that the terminal hour for the operation of the premises would be 23:00 hours. By imposing a condition restricting the capacity of the premises and on the basis that the premises would be food led, the Sub-Committee decided to make an exception in accordance with Licensing Policy 2.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee concluded that the premises would not impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives. The arrangements made by the management for the development for exit onto Upper Street after 20:00hours and the introduction of a drinking up time to allow for dispersal form the premises would promote the licensing objectives to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder.

 

In accordance with Licensing Policy 6, the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant hours of operation beyond the planning consent.

 

The conditions imposed on the licence were reasonable and proportionate and would ensure that the licensing objectives were promoted.