Agenda item

The Licensing Officer was asked to provide updates to the Committee. In response the Licensing Officer advised members that aside from minor additional information, the case was as presented in the agenda papers.

The Licensing Authority and the Police were present as the Responsible Authorities for this application to give their verbal representation to members.

In their representation, the Licensing Authority that their position remained the same as presented in the agenda papers, and that it was their recommendation that the application was considered by the Committee as the licence had only been in effect for six months. The Licensing Authority confirmed that there had been no anti-social behaviour or noise complaints regarding the premises and that it would be for the committee to determine based on the submissions given by the applicant, as to whether the applicants were responsible operators.

The Police stated that their representation was also as per that which was published in the meeting agenda, and that their position was neutral, and that it was for committee to determine whether they were satisfied with the application on balance. The Police further stated that there had been no issues under the current management and that they felt the decision should be taken by the committee instead of delegated. 

There were no interested parties and therefore the Chair moved to ask the applicant to summarise their case. In their representation, the applicant stated that prior to their ownership, the premises’ reputation was not positive and that on assuming ownership and applying to the committee for the current licence in October 2023, it was on the commitment that they would address historical issues and improve the premises to a position of good standing. The applicant stated that they accepted the reduced hours that had been granted and implemented the conditions, and that the premises was now in a position that they could apply for the hours they had originally wanted, which would sustain the business.

The applicant requested that the committee, when deciding whether to grant the hours applied for, considered what they (the applicant) had achieved for live music in both Camden and Islington. It was further stated by the applicant that they had a close working relationship with Camden Council and with other establishments in the area, through which they had set up a “pub watch” group to discuss new legislation, issues in the local area and community initiatives. The applicant stated that while their premises was not busy every night, they had put their policies and procedures to test and it was hoped that the operation of the premises for six months without issue and the lack of representations from residents for this application, would be enough to satisfy the committee to grant the application.

The applicant stated that they had been granted fourteen Temporary Event Notices (TENs) which had each been implemented with no issues and that the closest model of operation for their venue would be the Jazz Café in Camden, which rarely needed a Temporary Event Notice unless it was for something specific.

Members of the Committee asked the applicant whether they were seeking extended hours to attract new bookings. In response, the applicant advised that the current hours did not give scope to host live music or late-night events and to attract promoters. The applicant stated that they sat on the Archway Town Centre group, and sought to utilise their space as a destination venue that would bring people into Archway. The applicant stated that they wanted the space to provide a varied offer and hosted events during the day as well as spoken word sessions.

The applicant stated that they would vet organisers of events that weren’t in-house that would be using the space as they did not want anyone operating in the space that could tarnish the operation and reputation of the venue. The applicant told members that they had a positive working relationship with council officers and would ensure all events held on the premises were compliant with the licence in effect.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Sub-Committee has decided to grant the application for a premises licence variation in respect of The Archway, First Floor, 1 Navigator Square, London, N19 3TD

a)    To allow the Sale of alcohol on the premises, Thursdays, from 09:00 to 02:00, Fridays to Saturdays, from 09:00 to 03:30.

b)    To allow Regulated Entertainments, Films, Live Music, Recorded Music and the performance of Dance, on Thursdays from 09:00 to 02:30, and on Fridays to Sundays, from 09:00 to 04:00.

c)     To allow the premises opening hours to be Thursdays, from 09:00 to 02:30, Fridays to Saturdays, from 09:00 to 04:00. 

d)    All other hours remain unchanged.

2)    Conditions detailed on pages 53 to 58 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was an application for the variation of a premises licence granted on 31^st October 2023. At that hearing the existing conditions on the licence had been agreed with the applicant.

The applicant’s contention was that the licensing authority had agreed that the applicant could bring a fresh application for variation of the licensable hours following a reasonable period to establish how the new business was operating and whether there were any concerns.

This application for variation was therefore brought 7 months after the granting of the existin licence.

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Junction cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

No resident objections had been received.  There had been two representations made by the responsible authorities, namely the Licensing Authority and the Police.

The LSC noted that no residents had objected to the application. It also noted that the responsible authorities had reported that there had been no reports of anti social behaviour or crime and disoreder associated with the premises since the granting of the new license.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the variation with the existing conditions would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, meant that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the variation was proportionate and

appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.