Agenda and minutes

Councillor Paul Convery 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 Councillor Nick Wayne.

Councillor Kadeema Woodbyrne substituted for Councillor Nick Wayne.

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 meetings held on 1 and 6 August 2019 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the applicant had emailed additional conditions in response to the interested parties.  These were tabled and would be interleaved with the agenda.

The interested parties raised concerns that the rooms proposed to be licensed would be next to the bedrooms on adjacent buildings, that the outside space would not be able to support an additional number of people in the smoking area and also that the waste area in Yardley Street was frequently overloaded. Concerns regarding the use of the roof area were also raised and residents stated that a plan of the proposal was not available so residents were unable to obtain an idea of numbers and the number of toilets available to patrons.  It was considered that noise from the roof area would carry to neighbouring properties.

The applicant stated that the flat roof was not going to be used and the rear of the building would not be accessible to patrons.  Their waste was not disposed of in Yardley Street and the overflowing rubbish did not belong to them.  There would be two rooms on the first floor set out in the middle of the premises and not adjacent to residential properties. There would be no change to the hours or the licensable activities and additional conditions had been proposed in additional to those detailed in the report. Previously, the premises had been a live music venue which had caused nuisance to residents but it was now a gastropub with a 45% drink and 55% food sales ratio. On the ground floor there were 80 seats available for dining and 70 standing on a very busy night.  Customers were managed as best as possible with 3 to 7 staff on duty on a Friday.  The hours of 5 to 7pm were the busiest with 2 or 3 staff dedicated to the outside space at this time.  If any customer had been caught urinating outside the premises they would be barred. The rooms were to be used as a private dining facility with some daytime use for management meetings.  The dining room could hold 14 people and it was expected that there would only ever be one event between the two rooms except at Christmas. When two rooms were used it was expected that one room would be used for pre and post drinks. This was not an overspill for the public house and it was expected that existing patrons would be those making bookings for the upstairs facility.  There would be a modest increase in capacity.  Conditions put forward by the noise team and trading standards had been agreed.  They would not have DJs and live music would be limited to 1 or 2 musicians and would likely be just a few times a year.  Management plans would be drawn up for the first floor rooms and the outside area.  Dining was limited to 14 persons. Customers were not permitted to use the rear of the building. Most food bookings would end  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

The licensing officer reported that an email had been received from the applicant which stated that there were no plans to place tables outside the premises. It was intended to place two two-person benches outside with a maximum of 10 people standing outside.

A local resident raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact.  He stated that three out of nine premises would be bars.  In terms of planning use, the ground floor was A3 with A4 at the basement.  He was concerned about the planning situation for the outside space.  He stated that microbreweries had been granted B2 planning use in other areas and this application did state that the premises was a brewery. When patrons stood outside, residents had to walk in the road and many cyclists used the road.  The resident was concerned that the benches outside would not leave room for pedestrians and stated that there should be conditions to manage the outside area if the application was granted.

The applicant stated that the premises were too small for a brewery and in terms of planning use they would not be distributing any alcohol and were therefore not viewed as a factory.  They expected their clientele to be older people.  There would be no tables but would have two x two person benches outside to accommodate smokers.  They expected patrons to focus on their experience.  At their other branch they had door staff on Friday and Saturday until half an hour after close.  Conditions had been agreed with the police and noise teams.  Challenge 25 would be implemented.

In response to questions, particularly regarding cumulative impact, it was noted that the premises would sell 20 different beers in small sizes.  The applicant stated they were bringing a different concept to the area.  They were not a classic pub or restaurant but a premises offering tasting experiences.  They had a rotating menu of beers   Staff would be fully trained and customers would not be making a nuisance on the streets. CCTV had been installed to monitor the outside area.  A water drinking station was installed in the premises. Beer enthusiasts would travel the world to experience the Mikkeller brand.  There were a number of tables and seating within the venue and most customers sat down. Customers walked in and would know the Mikkeller brand.  They had tried to work with the community and taken the essence of the area to make their concept fit and to benefit the area.  They would be offering danish open sandwiches and coffee.  This would be a place where people could work.

The applicant agreed a commencement hour of 11am.

In summary, the resident was concerned that they had not undertaken market research with the community.  Their measures such as CCTV only recorded issues after the event and residents should not have to be inconvenienced.  This would add to the cumulative impact and 3 out of 9 premises would be licenced.

The applicant stated that they had been considering the area for about a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.