Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that this was a variation of a licence to allow for the sale of alcohol, live music and late night refreshment from midnight to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays.  Conditions had been agreed with the noise team.

The police reported that there had been 536 reported crimes in the ward in the past 12 weeks.  It was admitted that these were not necessarily alcohol related.  The premises did have issues previously but was now better managed.  There was a concern that, with the additional hours and additional alcohol, the previous problems would return.

The licensing authority raised concerns regarding noise breakout and the impact of the activities of patrons at the premises on residents after midnight. 

In response to questions it was noted that there was no condition on the licence for alcohol to be ancillary to food.  The restaurant was on the ground floor and patrons could drink in the basement. 

Interested parties spoke against the application.  One local resident raised concerns regarding the noise nuisance from patrons smoking outside and leaving the premises.  There were no tables in the basement.  This was a very residential area with Kestrel House opposite and new developments close by.  They did not consider that the premises were designed to be able to limit noise escape as it was an old Victorian property.  Another local resident stated that the licence had been previously revoked and local people had concerns regarding the past history, the noise escape from the premises, noise from patrons leaving, the noise from bottling up and putting the rubbish out which already was a problem, the already dense residential area and the general view that the current arrangements should remain.  It was also stated that a 2am licence would give only a 2 to 3 hour sleeping period as a local supermarket opened at 5am.

In response to questions a local resident reported that she had spoken to three residents in the block behind the premises who had informed her of their concerns. 

The applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that this application was for a variation on Friday and Saturdays only for licensable activities up until 2am.  The customers would have food until 11pm on the ground floor and move to the basement to continue until 2am.  Four temporary events had been held and the concerns of the police and the licensing authority had been met.  There had been no issues with these TENs.  There was a sound limiter.  Not many people gathered outside the premises.  They should not be penalised for problems under the previous licence holder.  The licence would be used for private functions.  They stated that they could have recorded music only.  Staff left at midnight so any noise after this time should not be from this premises.

In response to questions it was noted that customers could have a drink downstairs and disperse gradually.  There were signs asking customers to leave quietly and be considerate to neighbours. There had been no complaints when the temporary events had been held.  There would be a complaint procedure.  Rubbish is collected at 9pm.  The premises closed at midnight and staff left by 12.15. There was a large pavement area and customers were kept behind barriers.  The security officer would ensure that there was no noise from smokers. 

In summary, the police stated that they had concerns that the licensee had stated that he would keep drunk customers inside and considered that customers should not be drunk.  Temporary event notices do not compare with full variations of licences and stated that he was against the issuing of this licence.  Local residents stated that the assurances of the applicant were not convincing.  There was a language issue when complaints needed to be made. The doorman would be ineffective.  There had been problems with the noise from the pavement before and this cannot be resolved by security.  The pavement was opposite a large number of residential premises.

The applicant’s representative stated that if a customer was drunk at least the customer was kept inside the premises until a taxi was called and not on the street. There had been no complaints regarding the temporary events which demonstrated good practice.  The language issue was not a strong argument and any complaints had been addressed.  If there were complaints, residents could write in.  There had been no complaints with the patrons outside when the temporary events had been held. 

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence variation for Tas Firin, 277 City Road, EC1V 1LA 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 Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Bunhill and Clerkenwell cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations to 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 noted that the applicant had agreed the conditions proposed by the noise team.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that during a recent visit to the premises it was apparent that the premises were much better run now than under the previous licensee.  However, the police were concerned that the extra hours sought and the extra alcohol sold may bring back the previous problems.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensing authority that there were concerns regarding the impact on residents if the premises were licensed after midnight.  The problem was the activities of patrons when leaving the premises or when smoking outside the premises and the licensing authority considered the application to be weak in that area.  The Sub-Committee noted that the sale of alcohol was not currently ancillary to the sale of food. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from a representative from the Angel Association that their main concerns were noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.  The association emphasised the residential nature of the area and expressed concerns that the nature of the building meant that it was unsuitable for live music.  The association also expressed concerns about the noise patrons made when leaving and that staff made when clearing up. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from a local resident that residents were disturbed by the noise made by patrons leaving the premises and smokers outside the premises.  The previous licence was conditioned to try to tackle these problems but it did not work. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant’s representative that the idea for the premises was to have food upstairs until 11pm and then people would go down to the basement until 2am and then disperse.  The applicant stated that the premises have operated later hours under four separate TENs and that there had been no complaints.  The applicant confirmed that a sound limiter was in place and that security guards were employed outside to control patrons smoking or leaving the premises.  The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was prepared to have only recorded music and not live music to 2am.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that there were signs in the premises asking patrons to disperse quietly and that anyone leaving the premises by taxi was asked to wait inside the premises.  The applicant confirmed that rubbish must be put out by 9pm as this was when it was collected, but the premises had no formal policy on bottling out.

The Sub-Committee was concerned with the hours sought by the applicant.  The applicant had no dispersal policy to illustrate how he proposed to control noise nuisance when patrons were leaving at 2am.  The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had shown how noise from smokers outside the premises would be controlled.  The Sub-Committee considered that the concerns of the residents in relation to noise were very genuine and the application, even with the conditions proposed, did not address these.

The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s assertion that the premises operate as a restaurant but were concerned that the hours sought were outside the core hours for restaurants in licensing policies 7 and 8.  Whilst it was noted that the premises had taken steps to tackle problems of noise from music outbreak, the application did not satisfactorily address the other noise issues raised. 

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine the licensing objectives. In accordance with Licensing Policy 7, the Sub-Committee noted the cumulative impact that the proliferation of late night venues and retailers in the borough was having on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the increased hours would add to the availability of alcohol in an area where there was already a large number of licensed premises with associated anti-social and criminal behaviour and therefore have a cumulative impact on the licensing objectives. In accordance with licensing policy 2, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the grant of the application would undermine the licensing objectives.  The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the application if granted, would add to the cumulative impact area.  The applicant did not show any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the application.