Skip to content

Agenda item

Dolce Coffee, 48 Essex Road, N1 8LR - New premises licence application

Minutes:

The licensing officer reported that the representation from the Licensing Authority had been withdrawn after planning concerns had been satisfied.  Conditions from the police had been tabled and these were agreed by the applicant. Further proposed conditions and photos of the outside area were tabled by the applicant.  These papers would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

 

 A local resident reported that there were two other bars in the area with outside areas.  These created noise disturbance already and another bar would add to the noise and the applicant may ask to increase the hours at a later date. There was already a saturation of bars in the area, nine within 60 or 70 metres.  Drinkers moved from one bar to another.  The applicant had submitted vague proposals.  The premises did not have a kitchen but the applicant stated it was a restaurant.  There was no side entrance for the collection of bottles so would be collected via the front door.  There was an internet café in the basement which those under 18 would use in a premises that sold alcohol.  This was a residential area and customers would cause public nuisance moving from one bar to another.

 

The applicant’s agent appreciated the difficulties the resident described but stated that his client could not be held responsible for other premises.  Granting this licence was not going to add to the cumulative impact.  This was not a bar but a restaurant.  Tabled conditions were restaurant conditions and stated that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to a substantial table meal.  They had submitted an application for a certificate of lawfulness which the planning team accepted.  The premises were moving from a café to a fully functioning restaurant.  The representations referred to a bar.  This would be a restaurant with restaurant conditions. 

 

In response to questions it was noted that lasagne and salad were examples of meals that were sold at the moment.  It was noted that it was an oversight not to submit a kitchen plan.  The kitchen area would be downstairs.  They did not cook food from fresh.  The agent stated that the licence could be subject to the submission of a kitchen plan and alcohol would be served with a substantial meal e.g lasagne, spaghetti bolognaise.  He applicant stated that there would be 18 tables inside and 12 outside.  There would be two people at each table, making 36 people inside and 24 outside.  

 

In summary, the police raised concerns regarding the number of personal licence holders on the premises as the hours requested indicated a long shift pattern.  Additional conditions were received only recently and there would be a noise nuisance from people outside eating.  The noise level increased when food was served with alcohol.

The agent stated that he appreciated that voices did carry but considered that 10.30pm was not too late.  The terrace could be closed if it caused a nuisance.  The premises would not be using the side alley.  The licensing authority had withdrawn their objections and one resident was in attendance and the applicant could work with him.  Other premises sold alcohol with food and these were not objected to.  Interested parties who objected were further away and he was not sure that he knew exactly where Dolce Coffee was located.

 

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Dolce Coffee, 48 Essex Road, London, N1 8LR be refused.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee considered the written submissions of the applicant and the residents.

The Sub-Committee also took into consideration the verbal representations made by the applicant and his representative.

The Licensing Authority had provided written representations but these were withdrawn before the hearing on the grounds that the concerns regarding planning approval had been satisfied. 

The premises were located within a cumulative impact area.

It was the intention of the applicant to construct a kitchen within the premises to enable the business to cook food of the premises. This was not included on the plan of the premises.

The plan did not show the number and location of where the dining tables would be nor did the application state what the intended capacity would be.

The Sub-Committee questioned the applicant on this at the hearing. The Sub-Committee took into account the fact that the numbers given, 18 tables inside the premises and 12 tables outside the premises, were an approximation and the stated number of 2 people per table was also an approximation which had not been properly thought through before the application.

The Sub-Committee concluded that although the application was for a licence within the core hours (Licensing Policy 8), the applicant had failed to deal with the cumulative impact issue.

Clear and satisfactory information on the layout of the premises and the expected number of patrons was not provided to the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee accordingly concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The application was accordingly refused.

Supporting documents: