Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair introduced all parties and outlined the procedure.

Apologies were received from Councillor Ibrahim

Councillor Mackmurdie was a Substitute Member for Councillor Ibrahim

No Declarations of interest were made.

The order of Business was as per the Agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them

The Applicant’s legal representative noted that the Sub Committee included a Ward Councillor and suggested that this could constitute a conflict of interest.  The legal representative made an application to adjourn the hearing stating that, whilst he was not suggesting that the applicant would not get a fair hearing, there should be no perception of bias.  As an alternative, it was suggested that the hearing proceed with only two Councillors.  Representations were made against the application for an adjournment by the legal representative of one of the residents, who stated that there was no legal bar to a Ward Councillor hearing an application relating to premises in their ward.  It was suggested that the Ward Councillor’s experience and knowledge of the area could be helpful. 

The legal advisor confirmed that the Sub-Committee would not be quorate if only two Councillors heard the application.  The Sub Committee retired to deliberate.  Upon returning to the meeting, it was confirmed by the legal advisor that the Council had no policy preventing a Ward Councillor hearing an application.  The Ward Councillor had confirmed that he had not received any representations from any parties involved in the application.  The Chair confirmed that it was the Sub-Committee’s view that there was no conflict of interest, that there would be no perception of bias and that the application for an adjournment would be refused and the hearing would proceed.

The Licensing officer updated the Sub-Committee explaining that the Police and the Noise team had agreed conditions and withdrawn their representations. Additional information and documents had been provided and all parties had seen this. The Applicant’s rep had provided information on a property at 84 Clerkenwell road, one resident lives in this block but this was not the exact address, originally the building had been developed as number 84 but now was number 14 as well.

The licensing authority maintained a representation on the grounds of licensing policy and hours, being in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). There was already an abundance of premises and outlets in the Clerkenwell CIA for alcohol and late-night refreshments. Concerns arose due to the number of reports sent to the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team; the opening night was overrun with people as a private event was leaked onto social media. ‘Chaos’ outside resulted in many complaints and causes of concern, with 45 reports to the ASB team regarding this premises. As many reports were made online, this made it challenging to address them promptly while the venue was open. Although noise complaints had decreased, there were still many, especially on weekends, with music being heard in adjacent flats. No acoustic testing had been conducted inside residents' houses. The stance remained unchanged, but they understood that the Noise team and Police had agreed conditions. The applicant was asked to surrender the current license should the new application be granted. The Licensing Authority made it clear that there was a need for effective management as it was a residential area, and a robust dispersal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

The Licensing Officer explained there were no updates on this application.

No interested parties were present at the hearing.

The Applicant explained the application was for the restoration of the Hat and Feathers pub. It was noted that the area has been successfully restored to its former glory, with a hotel now attached to the side. Concerns from residents were raised regarding potential noise and nuisance from entertainment activities. However, there would have been limited entertainment, it was emphasised that obtaining a license was necessary to enable patrons to enjoy refreshments and to facilitate licensable activities, if they do occur.

It was proposed that the entire premises be licensed, primarily to provide mini bars in the rooms. It was emphasised that the applicant had significant interest in minimising noise and nuisance, as there are 170 rooms for guests within the establishment.

The applicant explained that notably, there were no representatives present from the police, Environmental Health, or the Local Authority. And it was highlighted that the proposed activities fell within the framework hours outlined in the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA).

In response to questions from the committee the applicant explained the hotel was to the left side of the Pub facility on Clerkenwell Road and the Pub will be open to the General public.

RESOLVED:

DECISION

The Sub-Committee has decided to GRANT the application for a new premises licence to Hotel Indigo, 2 Clerkenwell Road, London, EC1M 5PQ.

1)    The On Sales of Alcohol, from 00:00 until 24:00 Monday to Sunday for guests residing at the hotel.

2)    The On and Off Sales of Alcohol, from 08:00 until 23:00 Sunday to Thursday and from 08:00 until 00:00 Friday and Saturday for non guests.

3)    The provision of Films, Live Music, Recorded Music from 08:00 until 23:00 Sunday to Thursday and from 08:00 until 00:00 Friday and Saturday.

4)    The provision of Late Night Refreshment from 23:00 until 05:00 Monday to Sunday for guests residing at the hotel.

5)    The provision of Late Night Refreshment from 23:00 until 00:00 Friday and Saturday to Non-Guests.

6)    All activities above, from the end of permitted hours on New Years Eve, until the start of permitted hours on New Years Day

7)    Opening hours 00:00 until 24:00 Monday to Sunday

Conditions detailed on pages 122 to 124 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Bunhill cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

The Licensing Officer updated the committee explaining that they had received various email communications each explaining the facility was to be used for different things, therefore it was not clear whether the facility would be used as a ‘members bar’ for Ukrainian students or as a bar open to the public.

No interested parties were present.

The applicant’s representative apologised for the mix up in communications, telling the committee they had recently lost their father and therefore had not been as focused as they usually would have been.

The representative explained that they had initially applied for this to be a venue for a member’s club for Ukrainian Students due to the fact the applicant worked closely with Ukrainian students studying in the UK but after speaking with Licensing Officers they decided to change this to allow the bar to be open to the general public as well as the students.

They further explained they had tried to communicate with residents to help mitigate the issues surrounding noise and nuisance but had not been successful in these communications. They had also introduced a noise mitigation policy and sound proofing to the facility and had reduced the hours applied for from those originally sought. They were willing to work with and have open communication with residents that had concerns and had already agreed conditions with the Responsible Authorities.

In response to questions from the Committee it was confirmed that changes to the premises use, specifically the decision to transition to an open public bar, were made following consultations with the Police and Licensing Officers. The rationale behind this decision was to accommodate a wider audience.

Concerns were raised regarding the implementation of Challenge 25 policy and combatting underage drinking. The Bar Manager explained that identification checks would be conducted on individuals who appear to be under the age of 25, with a need for physical identification documents not photocopied versions.

Clarifications were sought regarding the nature of the premises, particularly whether it was a Ukrainian-themed club. It was clarified that while the establishment primarily targets Ukrainian students studying in London, it operated as a normal bar and would be open to the public.

Regarding the dispersal of intoxicated individuals, it was noted that conditions had been agreed upon with the Police. Additionally, it was emphasised that while the premises primarily function was as a bar, it was also a space for group engagements and alcohol would be supplementary to this.

Updates were provided regarding the current operational status of the premises. The Bar Manager told the committee that the establishment had not served alcohol for sale in the past two months, this had only been served free of charge to friends and family while practicing mixology. One Temporary Event Notice (TEN) had been issued from December 20th to January 3rd.

Furthermore, inquiries were made about the licensing experience of the Bar Manager. It was disclosed that the applicant had obtained a personal license six weeks prior, and while the applicant was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.