Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that additional papers had been circulated in response to the representations.  These detailed two additional conditions regarding beer strength and the amount of sales area used for the display of alcohol.

The police officer reported that, over a 12 week period there were 130 crimes in the Clerkenwell area.  He would expect to see hours within the policy framework hours.  He noted the discrepancy regarding the basement plan submitted. He had concerns regarding the off sales and asked that, if a licence was granted there be no off sales and the licence be granted within framework hours.

The licensing authority reported that the premises was in a cumulative impact area and considered that the applicant required maximum flexibility without prescriptive conditions.  The licensing authority required a balance and an application that was consistent with the licensing policy.  The applicant had cited a nearby premises with a newly issued licence but this premises only sold alcohol within framework hours and did not have off sales.  There were concerns regarding the late evening offer and clarity was required regarding the maximum capacity, the off sales and operation of the basement bar.

Three local residents attended the meeting. They raised concerns that conditions were put forward at the meeting, giving residents no time to consider them.  They stated that the neighbouring restaurant was not objected to as the application had not been seen by residents. Residents objected to this application on the grounds of public nuisance and crime and disorder.  Hours should be in line with the policy framework hours.  The pavement was crowded and their had been no effort by the applicant to minimise the noise, nuisance and rubbish.  Off sales should be refused and hours brought in line with other premises with Sundays being 5pm.  Consideration needed to be given to the maximum capacity, the times of deliveries, noise breakout from music and the number of smokers limited.

They reported that the applicant had sought maximum flexibility with meaningless conditions.  The application should be rejected as it had not been made properly.

One local resident supported the application made by the police. She stated that she would have preferred a retail application as the whole of the area would be taken up by restaurants.  She asked that the application be refused.

The applicant’s representative offered two further conditions regarding a dispersal policy and an agreement to meet with residents every six months.  The discrepancy on the plan was the shading in the bar area.  This was not the intention.  This was the second unit in the building.  There would be offices above.  The hours requested were those used in Albion restaurants in Shoreditch and the Southbank.  They believed that could uphold the licensing objectives with these hours. The Albion had a retail area and would wish off sales in this area in order that purchasers could buy wine to take home. They were not creating an off licence and residents were welcome to speak with them regarding problems.  Music had not been applied for.  There were thirty covers for the bar area which was located in the basement. There would be no queues outside.  This was not a nightclub and noise would not increase above background level.  Conditions were taken from the standard conditions in the policy and he was not usually criticised for offering further conditions at a hearing. The applicant reported that this would be a community facility and would offer a range of services to residents and customers.  They were happy to meet with residents to address concerns.

In response to questions, it was noted that the hours applied for covered both the retail and the restaurant.  The applicant stated that late at night off sales could be reduced. The style of operation would mean that it would not add to the cumulative impact.  A bottle of wine would cost at least £25 and there would be cheaper alternatives locally.  The hours for off sales in the retail part of the premises were the same as in Shoreditch and were not a cause for concern in that area.  There would be approximately 105 sq ft of space for alcohol space.  Craft beers, lager, wine and one branded gin would be sold on the premises. No application had been made for tables and chairs outside the premises.  There were unlikely to be queues on the pavement as this had not arisen in other premises.  Customers could be held inside the premises if necessary. They did not consider that they would add to the cumulative impact as they had no complaints at their other premises. They requested that the longer hours be granted as they would like the flexibility in the main restaurant area.  With the reduced hours, if customers arrived at 10pm and ordered food at 11pm they could not be served. Clerkenwell Road was busy and noise was not expected to be an issue.  The dispersal condition was not finalised as it was considered that this would be more sensible on completion of the development and in consultation with local residents. They would have signage for customers purchasing off sales.  They would not expect customers to drink outside if smoking and there would be proper management of customers.

Councillor Williamson thanked the residents for their work that they had made in their representations.

In summary, the licensing authority asked that if the application was granted there would be conditions regarding the dispersal policy, the management of the outside area, there be clarity regarding capacity and conditions relating to a predominantly food led venue.

The interested parties considered that this was a badly prepared application with no thought out conditions regarding rubbish and dispersal.  This was a cumulative impact area and the onus was on the applicant.  Although there were no residents above, there was a residential block in Britton Street.  The premises had a glazed/curved design and would attract custom. Alcohol without food would be served in the bar area.  There would be no controls if the premises were hired out for parties. There were already 57 licensed premises in the area and there was no need for more.

The licensee’s representative stated that they would be happy to meet residents every six months.  He refuted that this was a bad application.  Conditions had not all been standard. These were conditions that would be adhered to and if breached the applicant could receive a fine.  This premises was for restaurant style use with a small bar and café.  With any change in style of operation, a variation would need to be submitted.

RESOLVED that

The application for a new premises licence in respect of Unit 1, 62 Turnmill Street, EC1M 5NP be adjourned to the 5 October 2015.

The Sub-Committee considers that further conditions are required and would ask that further information be provided by the applicant on the following matters:-

Use of the bar area for drinking only, hiring out of the premises, the use of framework hours, off sales in general, conditions in relation to reduction in noise, capacity, dispersal policy, deliveries, use of the outside area for smokers, consultation with local residents.  The list is not limited to these points.

The Sub-Committee ask that the applicants provide the information requested to the licensing officer at least 30 days before the meeting.