Agenda item

The licensing officer advised the Sub-Committee that the police representation was not an accepted representation and therefore should not have been included the report. However, the applicant had agreed to adopt some of the conditions on page 101 of the report.

Three local residents were in attendance to object to the application. They raised concerns about the narrow residential street, the close proximity of the premises to homes, light pollution from all the lights being left on, a lack of engagement of management and an unwillingness to address concerns, deliveries to the café at 4.30am, concern about the management of the building, concern about weekend opening as this was the only time residents had respite, concern that up to 400 could attend events and they would all leave at the same time and cause problems with noise pollution and taxis with nowhere to park.

A ward councillor was in attendance to object to the application. She advised the Sub-Committee that the building used to be a light industrial building. It was now a co-working space. Concern was raised that the plans to use it for events at the weekend was not appropriate for a residential street and concern was raised about the management who were refusing to engage with residents. Concern was raised about plans for tables and chairs on the street. The councillor advised that additional conditions had been proposed by residents to manage their concerns and regular meetings with the management had been suggested.

In response to questions from members, the residents advised that the building was open 24 hours a day and the earliest deliveries took place was 3.30am with 2-3 vans delivering between 3.30am and 4.30am.

The applicant’s legal representative stated that the reason for the application to show films was to display pre-recorded videos, that the general public would not have access to the building, the management had written to objectors offering to defer the hearing and meet but the objectors had refused. The applicant’s legal representative confirmed the premises would not become a pub or cinema club. He stated that the applicant had provided a comprehensive operating schedule which was policy compliant. He raised concern that the points raised by objectors largely did not refer to licensable activities.

The Head of Food and Beverage at the premises stated that she had joined the business in May 2018. She advised that the premises was primarily a workspace. The licence would mean members could have a drink after work and be served to members holding meetings. She advised that the building was open 24 hours a day as some of the businesses using the workspace were global and dealt with businesses in other time zones. She added that off sales were being requested to prevent people from having to finish a bottle of wine when they did not want to or to enable members to pre-order drinks for events and then take the unused bottles away with them. The applicant was willing for off sales to be restricted to these two purposes.

In response to a question from a member as to whether the recruitment of a Head of Food and Beverages meant the business was moving away from a workspace, the Head of Food and Beverages advised that the recruitment was as the result of expansion and Cer were looking to have 15 premises. They had recently expanded from 2 to 4 premises and as they kept the cafes and catering in house, they required managing. Food and beverage provision was one of the benefits for members. Activities such as yoga and fitness were also offered.

In response to objectors’ concern about deliveries at 3.30-4.30am, the Head of Food and Beverages stated that following the complaints she had spoken to the suppliers and had advised them that Cer would stop working with them if they could not deliver later. She was happy to meet with residents twice a year to discuss any concerns. She advised that there was a 24 hour contact number on the website which would be answered by someone in the building.

In response to questions from members about the lack of a dispersal policy and whether staff could deal with customers who had had too much to drink, the applicant’s representative stated that a dispersal policy could be drawn up, there was a full training programme for staff and security guards were present throughout the night. The licence would give the management more control.

In response to a question from a member as to why the management had not engaged with residents over the last two years, the applicant’s representative stated that as she had only stated working there in May 2018, she was unable to comment about the time prior to this. Steps had been taken to make early deliveries later, in response to concerns about light pollution, blinds had been installed and lights had been turned off at night on the top floors. In response to a query as to why the Operations Manager was not present, the applicant’s legal representative stated that it was considered that it was more appropriate to have the Head of Food and Beverage present as she would be managing the licensed areas and would also be the Designated Premises Supervisor.

In summary, the objectors stated that the phone number residents had called had been ineffective and the security guards had not been able to help residents when they had complained. The applicant’s representative stated she would look into this.

In summary, the ward councillor stated she was concerned about the management and raised concern that there could be further issues if the premises was given a licence and the hours were extended to include weekends. Concern was raised that the applicant had only started offering to meet residents since the legal representative for the licensing application had been appointed. The councillor stated that the drinking and socialising aspect was not appropriate for the residential area, particularly as clients and hirers could invite guests so it was not just restricted to those working there. The councillor requested that if the application was granted, the residents’ proposed conditions as well as those of the police should be included.

In summary, the applicant’s legal representative advised the Sub-Committee that this was their fourth recent application in London; two had be granted unopposed and one had had objections that related to planning. He stated that the Licensing Act stated that objections should be backed up by evidence.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Cer, 25-27 Horsell Road, London, N5 1XL be granted

1)         To allow the sale by retail of alcohol, on supplies only, Mondays to Sundays from 11:00 until 21:00; and

2)         The showing of films, Monday to Sundays from 09:00 until 21:00.

That the application for the non-standard timings for the sought activity during bona-fide functions and/or pre-booked events be granted as detailed below:

·         The showing of films, on up to 10 occasions with a minimum of 7 days’ notice to the Licensing Authority from 09:00 until 23:00.

That the application for the non-standard timings for the sought activity during bona-fide functions and/or pre-booked events be refused as detailed below:

1)         The sale of alcohol, on and off supplies, on up to 10 occasions with a minimum of 7 days’ notice to the Licensing Authority from 11:00 until 23:00.

The conditions detailed on page 101 consistent with the operating schedule and the conditions agreed with the Council’s Noise Service on page 103 would be applied to the licence. In relation to the conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police on pages 101-102, Conditions 10, 12, 13, and 15 and Condition 13e would be amended to read “The system will provide full coverage of the interior of the premises where licensable activity occurs and any exterior part of the premises accessible to the public”.

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 did not fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  However, under Licensing Policy 4 the Council had adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Licensing Policy 4 created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused or subject to certain limitations, following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant could demonstrate in the operation schedule that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

20 local resident objections and one ward councillor objection had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours specified were within the hours specified in Licensing Policy 6. The residents complained of deliveries of food throughout the night and the applicant had assured the sub-committee that deliveries of alcohol would only take place during the day. However, residents portrayed a lack of responsiveness from management to their complaints in general and an existing nuisance in Horsell Road resulting from people leaving the premises talking in the streets. The addition of alcohol to the premises activities was likely to exacerbate the situation and needed to be carefully managed. The Sub-Committee noted that although the residents had a mobile phone number to call if there was an issue, this had proved ineffective and management had seemed incapable of addressing the issues they raised. This reduced the confidence of the Sub-Committee in the assurances given by the applicant. In addition, no dispersal policy had been set out in the operating schedule for consideration. There was a real possibility that people leaving late in the evening after consuming alcohol would create a nuisance from the transport arrangements they made or from taxis in what was a narrow street.

Under Licensing Policy 21, the Licensing Authority was committed to preventing public nuisance by protecting the amenity of residents in the vicinity of licensed premises and applicants are expected to address these issues in their operating schedules. The Licensing Authority would impose appropriate restrictions on the licence to support the prevention of public nuisance due to highways and pavement obstructions, the dispersal of patrons and noise.

The Sub-Committee concluded that with the removal of the non-standard timings for the sale of alcohol on and off supplies on up to 10 occasions from 11:00 to 23:00, granting the licence would be proportionate and appropriate to the licensing objectives but it would not be appropriate to grant the non-standard timings as above for the sale of alcohol on and off supplies in view of the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance.