Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the statement of case by the applicant had been sent to members.

There were no objectors present at the hearing.

The applicant explained that the café was in Finsbury Square and the council was the freeholder. The café had a very old premises licence and so the applicant had put in a new one to have it updated.

The applicant stated he had written to the applicant but had had no response.

RESOLVED:

That the new premises licence in respect of Chalana, Community Gardens, Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1HD be granted

1)         To allow the addition of off sales for all currently authorised hours i.e. Mondays to Saturdays from 10:00 until 23:00 and Sundays from 12:00 until 22:30; and

2)         To replace the current premises licence conditions with those conditions as laid out within Annex A of the submitted application. These conditions could also be found at Appendix 4 of the officer report.

Conditions detailed on pages 239 and 240 of the agenda would 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 fell within the Bunhill cumulative impact area.  Licensing Policy 3 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 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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration 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.

One local resident objection had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities and it appeared that the licensing authority had encouraged the variation application. As explained by the applicant, the variation application was to update the existing premises licence and bring it in line with its current practice. As a result of the application, appropriate and updated conditions, satisfactory to the Responsible Authorities were replacing the old conditions on the licence. In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee accepted that the applicant rebutted the presumption in Licensing Policies 3 and 4.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in Licensing Policy 6.

The Sub-Committee concluded that it would be proportionate and appropriate to the licensing objectives to grant the variation.