Agenda item

The licensing officer stated that information from the applicant’s legal representative had been sent to the members and interested parties. A resident had provided a document later than the 48 hour prior to the hearing deadline but as the applicant had agreed to its submission, it was shown to the Sub-Committee.

A resident raised concerns about the negative cumulative impact and public nuisance. She explained that the street had no other pubs or bars. The businesses there were a furniture showroom and desk based businesses. There were schools neighbouring the premises and apart from at the beginning and end of the day, the street was very quiet. It was also a very narrow street and there were only two trees and no grass so there was nothing to absorb the sound. Children’s bedrooms were in very close proximity to Fora. These circumstances meant there would be a particularly adverse impact on this street.

The resident raised concern that granting a licence would change the character of the street. It was not just Fora members that could use the lounge and terrace but also up to three guests for each member and guests pre-registered to attend planned events. Concern was raised that 80 people could leave the building at the same time in the evening after having had consumed alcohol. Concern was raised about the effects on vulnerable people on the street, noise levels from the terrace, from people congregating to smoke outside, from deliveries and from the increased demand for taxis.

In response to a question from a member about the impact on the adjoining school, a resident advised that the parents had been very concerned about the application and many had put in representations. They were particularly concerned about inebriated people leaving the premises and those drinking on the terrace overlooking the school. One person who worked at the school and used Fora’s facilities had submitted a representation in support of the application but the resident stated that this person’s views were not shared by the parents.

The resident requested that if the licence was granted, it should only be granted between 5pm and 8pm Monday to Friday to enable children to sleep and residents’ to have nuisance free evenings and weekends.

In response to a member’s question, a resident confirmed that she had made complaints to both the council and Fora. She stated that the management at Fora were very responsive and there was a good working relationship with residents. The noise team stated that the council had not received any complaints in relation to Dallington Street.

The applicant stated that Fora primarily provided office facilities for those who wanted to rent workspace rather than rent their own building. Alcohol would be an ancillary feature and it was not anticipated that large volumes of alcohol would be sold. Currently the premises was 98% let. The manager stated that four or five complaints had been received in the last month in relation to the time of deliveries and waste collection. Management had worked to address these issues and would continue to do so. Some events had been held where alcohol had been provided free of charge and there had not been any complaints from residents then. Patrons were also able to bring their own alcohol and there had been no complaints from residents. Residents had been given the contact details of the managers and it was proposed that there be a litter pick four times a day and quarterly meetings held with residents.

The applicant advised that they were granted a licence for another branch of Fora a few months ago and there had been no issues. They had spent time with Dallington School and the school did not object and had space at Fora. 1.7m high planters had been place all around the terrace to prevent overlooking so it was not possible to see into the school from the terrace.

A member asked whether information on Fora’s website which stated that Fora offered “hotel like hospitality and members’ club like service” was misleading when Fora was primarily an office space. The applicant’s representative raised concern that this question was unfair as the information was not in the papers and he had not read information on the website. However, the applicant responded that this statement referred to all staff having been trained in hospitality and providing excellent service and professionalism.

In response to a member’s question about the mix of businesses using Fora, the applicant advised that there was a broad mix, ranging from design led to lawyers. Fora provided a premium offer and was more expensive than co-worker space. It had a professional tone.

In response to a question about the anticipated impact of alcohol being sold, the applicant advised that there would be no change to the event strategy of the last 8 months. Drinks for Fora members and talks from market leaders would still be used. All Fora members including those from Fora, Clerkenwell were welcome to attend and bring registered guests. Technology events were held. Fora management managed all events held. The applicant advised that the terrace was currently used and at 6pm the doors were shut. There had been no issues with this arrangement. If drinks were sold rather than given out, this could be less enticing.

In response to a member’s question about whether the applicant would agree to an earlier closing time, the applicant advised that they had been running events without any noise complaints, the premises was run professionally and alcohol was currently consumed on the premises so they were reluctant to agree. However, the applicant’s representative stated that they would prefer the licence was granted to a certain time than refused.

In response to a member’s question about the management of smoking, the applicant advised that all Fora members had been emailed to ask that if there were more than 5 people outside the premises, that they disperse. The management swept up cigarette butts. If an agreement could be reached about the best place for people to smoke, this would be arranged.

In response to a member’s question about seating on the terrace, the applicant advised that there was seating for 16 people. If there were more than 20 people out there, some were asked to go inside. The applicant confirmed that children could not see on to the terrace.

In response to a question as to why Clerkenwell Fora members would attend talks at Dallington Road, the applicant advised that talks were arranged at one of the Fora branches and members from both could attend. When an earlier application had been submitted, it requested that members from any Fora branch could attend but this had been reduced at the residents’ request. The numbers that could attend talks were capped and Fora members had to register in advance.

In response to a member’s question about light pollution, the applicant’s representative stated that automated blinds had been ordered and were being specially built.

In summary, a resident stated that children could not sleep with noise from Fora. If the licence was to be granted, it was requested that it should only be between the hours of 5 and 8pm Monday to Friday.

In summary, the legal representative stated that during events staff stood outside to ensure residents were not disturbed. Events had been held under TENs and no complaints had been received. Residents had been provided with the contact details of management and if issues were raised, these would be dealt with immediately.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Fora, Fifth Floor, 9 Dallington Street, London, EC1V 0BQ be granted

1)         To allow the sale by retail of on sales of alcohol and recorded music from 12:00 until 15:30 and from 17:00 until 21:00 Monday to Saturday.

2)         Opening hours of the premises to be:-  07:00 until 23:00 Monday to Sunday.  

3)         To allow a residents lounge on the fifth floor, with an outside terraced area. In line with the planning permission the terrace is not to be used on a Saturday.

Conditions detailed on pages 187 to 189 of the agenda as amended by the conditions agreed with the noise team 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 operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee fully considered the agenda papers and noted the written objections outlined at pages 111 to 185.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had agreed conditions with the police and noise team and that these representations had therefore been withdrawn.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from residents that unlike many other streets in the area there were no pubs, bars or restaurants on Dallington Street. The area had furniture showrooms, residential premises or desk based businesses which shut at 6pm Mondays to Fridays. Apart from at the beginning and end of the school day the street was quiet. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that part of the street was exceptionally narrow and that children’s bedrooms were very close to the premises. There were only two trees and no grass and so nothing to absorb sound which bounced off of buildings. The Sub-Committee noted residents’ concerns that therefore a license would have a particularly adverse impact on this street. The Sub-Committee noted residents’ concerns that the operating hours sought would change the nature of the street and that 80 people leaving the building at the same time after consuming alcohol would have a negative impact. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that there were vulnerable people in the area including children in the neighbouring schools and that noise would be created on the terrace and by people congregating outside to smoke. The Sub-Committee noted residents’ concerns regarding deliveries, increased taxi use, refuse collections and the potential impact on residents and children. The Sub-Committee noted that, if a licence was to be granted, residents would prefer reduced hours of 5pm-8pm Monday to Friday.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that the building was used as office facilities and that it was at virtually maximum occupancy with 98% of the space let at present. The Sub-Committee noted that the application had changed following objections from residents and meetings between the applicant and residents. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that, for example, the mid-afternoon break in opening had come about following these discussions. The Sub-Committee noted that senior employees had given contact details to residents in the event of complaints and that there was a good working relationship between the applicant and residents. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was of the view that the premises were unlikely to be used at full capacity and that the premises were primarily office space and not alcohol led. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that 1.7m of plants had been placed all-round the terrace so that no one could look into the school or adjacent buildings and that steps had been taken to restrict deliveries. The Sub-Committee noted that events had already been held where alcohol was consumed with no complaints.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that with the conditions attached the grant of the licence would not add to the cumulative impact and would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the council’s framework hours, however the Sub-Committee noted that the premises had agreed a condition providing for a 30 minute “drinking up” period. The Sub-Committee noted residents’ concerns as to noise affecting children who, by the nature of the street, lived in very close proximity to the premises and were concerned that a terminal hour of 9.30pm plus the drinking up period would add to cumulative impact in the particular circumstances of this premises. The Sub-Committee was therefore of the view that the slightly reduced terminal hour of 9pm would better promote the licensing objectives and would not add to the cumulative impact in the area. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises were flexible use premises that supported people visiting the area during the day. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had agreed various conditions in relation to the dispersal of patrons, security arrangements, rubbish clearance and deliveries and that the terrace area would not be operated after 6pm. The Sub-Committee noted that the planning permission for the premises did not allow the terrace area to be used on a Saturday.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the grant of the licence with the reduced terminal hour and the agreed conditions would not add to the cumulative impact and would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee considered Licensing Policies 1 in relation to planning permission, 2 and 3 in relation to cumulative impact, 5 and 6 in relation to operating hours and 7 and 8 in relation to high standards of management.