Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that there was a letter from the applicant to interested parties which had been circulated separately to the agenda.  There had been no response from the interested parties to this letter.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers. There had been no objections from responsible authorities.

A local resident raised concerns about the different types of alcohol that would be sold on the premises. She stated that the 15% of space allocated for display should be imposed on the room at the rear and that plans for the premises would need to be amended.  She raised concerns that alcohol would not be served with a meal and waiting staff would have to deal with customers who were intoxicated. She asked that, should the licence be granted, there be a condition that sake be the only alcohol served on the premises.

The applicant’s representative was happy to accept a condition that on sales be restricted to sake only.  He stated that the back room area had a capacity for 20 people and this area would be used for tasting.  The applicant had over eight years’ experience and the premises was used to sell specialist Japanese food and tableware.  Customers had asked to taste sake but as it was expensive and did not keep longer than three days once opened, samples could not be given away. The owner wished to maintain a quiet environment in the premises. He lived above the premises and would not want to live above a rowdy bar.  The licence was not transferable as this was not agreed in the lease.  There had been no complaints about the premises. Similar niche premises in the area had licences granted.  The cumulative impact policy was not absolute, there would be a capacity of 20 people, the hours fell within licensing policy 8 and the style of operation was not alcohol led.  The applicant’s representative stated that this type of premises suited the area, did not fit with the late night economy and would uphold the licensing objectives. He stated that there would be a dedicated operator, and as the application was policy compliant it should be granted with the conditions proposed.

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Kojima, Islington High Street, N1 8EG, be granted to allow:-

a)     The sale of alcohol, for consumption on the premises, from 11 am until 9pm Monday to Sunday.

b)     The premises to be open to the public from 11 am until 9.30pm Monday to Sunday.

2)       That conditions outlined on page 45 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following additional condition:-

·        That on sales be restricted to the sale of sake only.

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 premises licence variations 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.

Seven local resident objections had been received. There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The variation application was to permit on sales of alcohol.  There was an existing licence for off sales.

The Sub-Committee noted that the residents had raised concerns about the number of different types of alcohol that would be sold on the premises, some of which would be high strength. They also raised concerns that the premises were in a cumulative impact area and the on sale of alcohol sought would add to the cumulative impact.

In response to the concerns raised by the interested parties, the applicant offered a condition that sake would be the only alcohol sold on the premises.  He stated that the back area would be used for tastings of sake.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant lived above the premises and the alcohol licence could not be passed on under the requirements of the lease.  This was also reflected in the current conditions. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 8, the premises had less than 50 covers, was not alcohol led and as a result fell within the exceptions set out in licensing policy 2.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that, with the hours of operation, proposed conditions, and the additional condition that only sake be sold on the premises, the grant of the premises licence would not add to the existing cumulative impact and the licensing objectives would be promoted.

When making its decision, the Sub-Committee also considered licensing policy 9 regarding the operating schedule and licensing policy 18 regarding noise disturbance.