Agenda and minutes

Councillor Nick Wayne welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Spall and Nargund.

Councillor Flora Williamson substituted for Councillor Spall and Councillor Ernestas Jegorovas-Armstrong substituted for Councillor Nargund.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a) Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.  

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2023 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer advised that the fire risk assessment was available at the meeting for consideration.

The Licensing Authority stated that there been no further communication with the applicant.  She had visited the premises and seen the corrugated plastic structure with a glass roof.  Many complaints had been made by residents.  She considered that it would be difficult for the area to be sound proofed, and it was currently like an echo chamber. She recommended that the rear part of the premises should not be used after 8pm and any music should be at conversation level. She raised concerns about the fire exit doors and that these did not provide enough protection from the rest of the building. There was cooking taking place in the area and there were offices in the rest of the building.  She considered that the premises were not suitable for a fully operational bar with music.

In response to questions by members, it was noted that the fire risk assessment had been commissioned by the landlord and had been carried out in November 2022. The fire risk assessment had identified some quite significant issues with the premises.

Three residents spoke in objection to the application.  They stated that the premises was in the middle of residential premises.  There were student parties and a members’ club that operated in close proximity but with no complaint. There was constant noise escape with this premises. Issues had been known about for years. Noise disturbance could occur from 1 pm to 10pm. The building amplified noise rather than absorbing it. Following advice by an Acoustic Consultant, the noise level had been measured from Thursday to Sunday and the decibel level was in the region of 60 to 70. A vacuum cleaner had a decibel level of 70. A condition on the licence in 2015 asked for a noise survey. The structure was only four metres away from residential premises and neighbours were no longer able to use their gardens.  There was also constant light pollution.

In response to questions, the residents stated that the owner knew that this structure was unsuitable.  It had been well documented for years, since 2016/2107.  Residents had always had to submit noise complaints, but it had never been resolved with the premises. The structure lent itself to a pop-up temporary business and was unsuitable. Any conversation could be heard. The structure needed to be rebuilt and sound proofed and as tenants they could not do this themselves. In response to a question about regularising the situation, residents considered that any licence would not be workable as a noise condition would be broken each day. Problems could result from legitimising the premises because this concerned not only the current operators but anyone who may take over the premises in the future.

The licensing officer informed that the premises had been used as a café from 2015. The building, which had been erected in a loading bay, was unsuitable. A condition on the licence in 2015  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The licensing officer reported that the applicant had submitted a bundle of additional evidence. This included two additional proposed conditions.  It was confirmed that this application was in the Kings Cross cumulative impact area and hours had been amended to a terminal hour of 11pm.

The Licensing Authority stated that the initial application had not been clear.  She recommended that the terminal hour should be 11pm and that the Sub-Committee should be satisfied about how the business would operate. The applicant had provided an explanation about the issue that had occurred in February and the 11pm terminal hour and conditions had been agreed by the applicant. She accepted it would be too early for a fire risk assessment but would like a copy in the future.

It was noted that there were three resident objections although no resident attended the meeting.

The applicant’s representative stated that, although this premises was in the Kings Cross cumulative area it was very near the Angel. The policy issues regarding the Kings Cross area were based approximately a mile away from the hub. The policy provided exceptions; it was not alcohol led, it was principally a workspace and was within framework hours. This was not a bar or a pub and there would not be lots of people standing up and drinking and he hoped that the Sub-Committee could find an exception. Conditions had been agreed with the police and a dispersal policy had been provided. Clients would be charged an annual fee for membership and they could purchase drink if they required.  It was expected that clients would head towards Angel at the end of the day. There were residential premises at the rear of the building, but it was not considered that residents would be disturbed. This licence was for members to have a drink at the end of the day or for work functions with a lunch or dinner in the evening and conferences. Events would not be parties of weddings but, for example, project launches. Some events would not involve alcohol at all. The applicant stated that his background was in events, and he wanted to give people who worked in events some space to go to. They may use the space for a couple of hours between meetings, for conference space, networking with canapes and a glass of wine.  Membership was heavily subsidised. Additional conditions had been proposed to address concerns. One of these stated that functions would be limited to 25 a year.

In response to questions, it was accepted that the sale of alcohol would be required for lunchtime events from 12 noon but would not be necessary from 10am. The applicant was looking at a ten-year lease. Regarding the issue in February, lessons had been learned and they would oversee security at such an event in the future. At this event the doorman had been taken by surprise by the large number of paparazzi which had caused a traffic jam. For future events the press would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The licensing officer reported that a previous licence had lapsed and this application had been made for the same hours. The hours applied for were confirmed to the Sub-Committee.  It was noted that the licence had been used up until the pandemic and had only lapsed in January. Once this had been noticed, the applicant applied for a new licence.

A resident spoke in objection. The House was in the middle of a residential area. The resident appreciated that the applicant responded quickly to concerns but their main concern was the noise level in the garden with the late hours at the weekend. Their bedroom overlooked the pub and they were unable to install double glazing as their property was a listed building. They had no concerns about the staff who worked in the premises but raised concerns about the noise level for events. They would prefer not to be in a position where they would need to complain.

In response to questions, the resident stated that she had not lived there for a long time but other neighbours had informed her that the premises had been closed for several years and there had been noise complaints before that.

The applicant stated that she had been running the pub since 2018. It had been a pub for over 50 years, she had taken over the licence. It was not intended to  lapse the licence and she had to reapply. She lived above the premises with her daughter so would not wish to live above a noisy pub.  The garden had been busy during covid when allowed. There had been a complaint about the noise from the sound system but this complaint had been addressed. She had been gradually reopening since May. There had recently been an event with 150 people until 2am and there had been no complaints. She did not consider this to be a drinks led pub. She had run events, art exhibitions, pilates. This was a creative hub and alcohol was not always sold at events. Schools and charities had held quiz nights. She was considerate of the people in the community.

In response to questions, it was noted that the premises had been reopened from around May/June 2022 for three days a week following work to the pub. She stated that it was not the kind of pub that would cause issues with a late licence. She had recently had an event with 150 people. If she had events with over 50 people she would have a door supervisor. The sound system had a limiter. No more than 6 smokers were allowed outside. The outside was monitored by staff and there had been no complaints in recent times. Customers could not take drinks outside. Although there were events held at the premises it would also be open for the public to have a drink in the bar. She did not have a large amount of customers after 11pm but hospital workers may come for a drink  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.