Agenda item

Three local residents were present at the meeting.  They raised concerns that the business would operate until 4am and stated that the extractor fan was faulty and too loud.  They had concerns regarding the shutter operating between 1 and 4 in the morning. They stated that this was a quiet stretch of road between 1am and 4am and that the extractor fan would also need to be used for a longer period of time.  The operators were already in breach of their planning permission hours.  In response to questions, they did not consider the general area or the noise levels in the area had improved over the last few years.

The applicant stated that the fan problem had been resolved about four months ago and he had not had complaints since then.  There was a 24 hour off-licence and garage a few doors away.  The neighbour upstairs was not disturbed by the premises.  The shutter was electric and was quiet.  The shutter stopped half way down. Motorbikes were used for deliveries and drivers would switch their engine off on the main road.  The applicant had a contract with the student residence nearby. He considered that the fan problem was resolved but an engineer was visiting on Thursday 14 January 2016.  A neighbour spoke in support of the application.  He stated that he did not hear anything from the shop.  He heard police sirens from the road.  His bedroom was above the kitchen and he would have no problems with the extension of hours until 4am.

In response to questions it was noted that the shutters would remain half way down in order that the delivery drivers had access.  The door to the premises would remain closed. He considered that the problems with the fan were now resolved.  There would be two bikes with two drivers.  Deliveries would stop at 3am.  They expected the hours of 1am to 4am to be busier than the afternoon trade and this trade would make a huge impact on the business. 

In summary, the residents stated that the extractor fan was not used for the same amount of time in the colder weather.  The fan was fixed up to the top of the building.  It had been inherited from the previous occupier and still had the same problems.  One resident stated that his bedroom was at the rear and sound travelled differently over different floors.

The applicant stated that he kept having engineers to look at the fan and they had said there was nothing wrong with it. There was an engineer booked for Thursday.  The fan did not make noise at the moment.  There had been a bearing problem which had been fixed.  The fan would be inspected every three months.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence variation in respect of 292 Caledonian Road, N1 1BA 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 Kings Cross 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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the framework hours detailed at licensing policy 8 and policy 18 relating to noise outbreak.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from three local residents that they had concerns about the opening hours past 1am.   They stated that the extractor fan was faulty and kept them awake as it was too loud.  It was also noted that this was a quiet area between 1am and 4am.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant that it was expected that he would have a greater number of customers between the hours of 1am and 4am than during the afternoon.  He stated that there would be two motorbikes with drivers delivering. The shutters would remain shut. It was expected that they would have business from the nearby student accommodation.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance would be undermined if the variation was granted. 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.