Agenda item
Grillshack Steakhouse and Cocktail Bar, 67 Upper Street, N1 0NY - Premises licence variation
Minutes:
The licensing officer reported that conditions proposed by the police and noise team had been agreed. It would be sensible to remove the current conditions 5 and 7 which were existing under the original magistrate’s licence. The police and licensing authority representation remained.
The police reported that this application was outside framework hours and they were not able to condition to cover a business operation outside these hours. The conditions offered would satisfy framework hours only. The Licensing Authority stated that no additional conditions or details of how they would operate outside these hours had been offered by the applicant. The applicant had stated it was a restaurant and bar. Policy hours would be up until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
In response to questions, it was noted that no conditions had been initially offered by the applicant until discussions had taken place with the police. Police would support framework hours, but any extension of hours would need to be properly managed. The applicant had operated under a series of TENs but that would be a different prospect to a permanent extension of hours.
The applicant’s representative stated that this application was to extend hours for late night refreshment and the sale of alcohol. They had met with the police and agreed a number of conditions. 70 Upper Street had a number of conditions, and this premises operated to similar hours proposed. There had been no specific links to the premises of crime and disorder. The operator had been running similar businesses for twenty years and knew the area very well. He had operated a business at the same site.
In response to questions, it was noted that temporary event notices had been applied for with one operating the previous weekend which was for two parties. Patrons could leave by cab. It was noted that since Covid, business had decreased with many local businesses closing. The additional hours requested would help to pay staff, rent and rates. The business was quiet Monday to Wednesday but busier over the weekend. There would be no external promoted events, and this would be conditioned. A condition regarding door supervisors was proposed by risk assessment. The sale of alcohol was ancillary, and this was not a bar. There were 120 covers for food in a good location and this was not a walk-in bar. Patrons would have to buy food until 2.30 am as this was a restaurant. There would be staff/security on the door and 16 CCTV cameras. Waste collections were made from the rear of the premises. It was noted that the licensee had proposed a condition stating that waste collections could be from 8am to 8pm but had agreed to a noise team condition for collections up until 11pm. They stated that they were concerned about noise late at night. The licensees’ representative stated that there had been no history of incidents linked with the premises and the police conditions had been accepted. This was not an alcohol led business. They had no dispersal policy but would be happy to draft one. They would be willing to work with the authority with conditions. He stated that businesses had been struggling after Covid.
In summary, the Licensing Authority stated that the premises could not be compared with neighbouring premises as the other businesses were clubs and late-night bars. They had accepted the police conditions but had not explained how they would operate in a cumulative impact area. There was capacity for 120 people, and they would need to have systems in place to deal with people in the late-night economy. The revised plan of the premises had not been submitted and it was expected that alcohol would be ancillary to food. The police stated that this was considered to be a restaurant and they were unable to condition to late night hours. It would be unusual for a restaurant to have security. They did not consider that the hours should be extended.
The applicant stated that the plan of the bar was the same as it was in 2012. The premises was a restaurant and was not a nightclub. There was a proven history of promoting the licensing objectives, measures were in place and they would be happy to share the dispersal policy. They had requested less hours than neighbours and it was a reasonable application. There were notices on display in the premises.
RESOLVED
That the application for a premises licence variation in respect of Grillshack Steakhouse and Cocktail Bar, 67 Upper Street, N1 0NY be refused.
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 Policies 2 & 3. The premises fall within the Upper Street and Angel 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.
The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant sought to vary the premise licence and the current licence.
The Sub-Committee considered the representations made by the responsible authorities.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Police were concerned that the initial application did not include the previous police recommendation for updated safeguarding conditions and that the premises licence enjoyed the grant of longer than framework hours for late night refreshment and the sale by retail of alcohol. It was noted that the licence holder accepted the Police’s initial representations for conditions suitable for crime & disorder considerations, but the licence holder would consider if they wished to amend the application hours. It was noted that the licence holder was happy to amend the conditions to cover police recommendations but sought to keep the extended hours applied for. The Sub-Committee heard and noted that the application did not propose to amend any of the licence conditions already in place despite the Police noting that the extant conditions [Appendix 2 condition 5 and 7] appeared contrary to the current operation and may require amending. The Sub-Committee heard that the reason the Police had not withdrawn their representation was that with the operating hours being out of framework, there was a presumption which needed to be rebutted that this will adversely impact Crime and Disorder in the area.
The Sub-Committee noted and heard that the Licensing Authority’s concerns referred to Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder. It was further noted that the Licensing Authority’s concern was that the licensing hours sought would be significantly later than the current hours on the licence and beyond the recommended hours in the Licensing Policy. Further, it was noted that the Licensing Authority were concerned that no further additional conditions were offered in order for the Sub-Committee to be satisfied that the additional later hours would not adversely affect the cumulative impact policy and promote the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee noted the three representations from local residents who were not in attendance. It noted, that the first representation from the resident highlighted that the hours applied for were contrary to the Licensing Policy. It is noted that the second representation objected on the grounds of increasing noise and anti-social behaviour in the immediate area. It is noted that the third representation supported the application and the representative had proposed for the Applicant to apply for a late licence so that they could run cultural events, including live music as it would fit in with the premises and their latin menu.
The Sub-Committee noted and heard representations from the Applicant. The Sub-Committee noted from the Applicants unsigned witness statement that the Applicant has been a licence holder on Upper Street for 20 years and that he has experienced difficulties with the food and leisure industry post COVID-19. It was noted that the applicant accepted the proposed conditions by the Police.
It was noted that the Applicant’s legal representatives were going to make a request relating to conditions 5 and 7 of the current licence. The Sub-Committee noted that the submissions subsequently heard from the Applicant on this point that they would continue to sell or supply alcohol to persons taking table meals as ancillary to the meal. No detailed submissions were put forward relating to how the rest of current condition 5 will be adhered to, given the extended hours and to current licence condition 7.
The Sub-Committee further noted that the Applicant was happy to consider similar conditions as listed to the neighbouring businesses and that they would operate as a restaurant and cocktail bar and not a nightclub. The Sub-Committee in making further inquiries (and noting the applicant’s 20-year record on Upper Street) on this point highlighted that it is for the Applicant to satisfy the Sub-Committee of the conditions that it would be reasonable for their premises to operate as a restaurant and cocktail bar as opposed to providing comparable neighbouring businesses conditions that are not the same as the Applicants.
It was noted that the Applicant had represented at the time of his witness statement dated 19th November 2024 that there were no resident representations despite the two representations against the variation having been received and dated 14th November 2024.
It was further noted that the applicant in seeking to address the concerns regarding the cumulative impact assessment, proposed conditions that would deal with the prevention of Public Nuisance including Noise Control, Customer Dispersal and Waste and Delivery Management. When further enquiries were put to the applicant regarding Waste and Delivery Management, it transpired that the hours proposed were the ones not in fact being implemented as the Applicant would seek to rely on the Local Authority collection services and the hours they had agreed with the Council’s Noise Service.
The Sub-Committee made further enquiries in relation to the recent TENs and were advised that they took place without any complaints or issues. Further details on what procedures were in place and what specifically the events were not discerned in order to satisfy the Sub-Committee that the licensing objectives were preserved and adhered to.
Further details in relation to the plans of the premises to address how the cocktail bar and restaurant would operate in line with current and proposed conditions were not provided so the Sub-Committee could not be satisfied that the proposed conditions could be implemented accordingly so as to further the Licensing Objectives.
The Sub-Committee concluded that the hours sought were not within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.
Regarding Licence Policy 3, the Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant did not comprehensively demonstrate why a varied licence would not add to the cumulative impact and that the possible exceptions to the Angel and Upper Street Cumulative Impact Policy were not relied on and were not applicable in the application received.
The Sub-Committee were therefore satisfied that the grant of the application would undermine the Licensing Objectives. In so doing the Sub-Committee relied on the guidance provided in R (on application of Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Other (2011) EWCA Civ 312. Whereby it was illustrated that the licensed premises, and the activities that took place in those premises, exist in a dynamic environment and should not be looked at entirely in isolation. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the lack of detail including specific detail on noise mitigation in relation to the live events that recently took place and would be proposed to take place over extended hours did not contribute to the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. This was further compounded by the confusion relating to the Waste Collection mentioned above.
Further, in refusing to grant the application, the Sub-Committee relied on the guidance provided in R (on application of Daniel Thwaites plc) vs Wirral Magistrates Court and Others 2008 EWHC 838 (Admin). This case highlighted that Responsible Authorities were experts in their fields, and that weight should be attached to their representations. Further it illustrates that the purpose of the Act is to prevent problems from happening and the Responsible Authorities representation allow the Sub-Committee to contextualise the information and make a decision on well informed common sense. The Police’s representation led the Sub-Committee to come to such a decision. Specifically, their representation that the extant conditions [ Appendix 2 condition 5 and 7] appeared contrary to the current operation. That they may require amending was not taken on board by the applicant and therefore applying well informed common sense, the prospect of extending the operating hours would lead to extending what the Police viewed as a current operation contrary to the extant conditions. Thereby, applying the same common sense, would not lead to the promotion of the prevention of Crime and Disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.
Further, in refusing to grant the application, the Sub-Committee noted that the Licensing Authority’s representation and that the Applicant sought to address the Authority’s concerns at paragraph 21 of his unsigned witness statement. However, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that they had been presented with enough information such as, up to date plans of the premises, in order to determine the feasibility of the proposed conditions along with the continuation of the extant conditions the Applicant wished to keep. As such, in applying the approach in Thwaites, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the common sense determination was that there was not enough specific information on this front so it could not be satisfied that granting the extended hours would lead to the promotion of the prevention of Crime and Disorder, public safety and prevention of public nuisance.
Supporting documents: