Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that an addendum to the noise representation and an email from the applicant containing supportive references of the licence holder had been circulated separately and would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The noise officer reported that music noise could be controlled relatively easily but not customer noise.  She had visited a resident on 10 March during an Arsenal and Manchester United football match and witnessed the transmission of customer noise. She considered that more robust sound insulation work would be necessary to contain customer noise. A squeaky swinging sign outside also needed to be maintained.

The police stated that they were in support of the concerns expressed by the licensing authority over the management of the premises.  The premises had been a public house and then chicken bar.  The conditions were currently tailored to a restaurant. The police supported the move for the premises to move back to being a public house but had stressed to the owners that the premises should be operated in accordance with the current licence.  The applicant had not been abiding by the conditions and had not done so for some time.  They would not have reason to reject the new licence holder. 

The licensing authority stated that despite a meeting with the licence holder they had not complied with the conditions of the licence and had opened until 6am without a temporary event notice. The solicitor had stated that the previous designated premises supervisor had left on the 8 March although he was the only Director registered with Companies House as of 20 March 2019. The licensing authority would like the venue to become a well-managed public house but the applicant had so far not demonstrated high management standards. 

The interested party stated that when the premises was a restaurant there were no issues.  The premises currently operated late at night and caused a noise nuisance.  He had been threatened by the Head of Security when complaining.  They were offering cheap drink deals.  Fights had been witnessed outside the bar and one of the windows was smashed. There were issues regarding crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance. The premises already contributed to the cumulative impact policy and could not credibly demonstrate good management.  The applicant had reneged on the promise that it would act as a restaurant.  It was actually a sports bar and created disturbance even during the consultation period.  An abatement notice had been served. There had been a history of threatening behaviour and there had been blatant disregard for the conditions. 

In response to questions it was noted that even on non-match days the music was still loud.  On busy days the premises were packed inside and there were crowds of people outside. The premises impacted on their sleep as noise continued until 1am.  The interested party would want acoustic work carried out in order that both music and sound from crowds could not be heard.  He could not speak for the other interested parties in this regard.

The applicant stated that they would repair the squeaky sign. He acknowledged that management had not been sound.  The owners had seen the closure of pubs in the area and realised the need for a well-run pub.  They had spent £300 000 on a total refit of the premises.  The food condition that they wanted to be removed was difficult to enforce with the style of operation they were running.  However, this did not excuse management for failing to abide by the condition. There would still be a food offering at the premises. He stated that the previous manager had not passed on all the problems that had arisen. Amplified music could be remedied and he was happy to accept that there would be no amplified sound (except from televisions) until there was an acoustic scheme in place. The chicken shop went out of business as it was difficult to sustain.  They had brought a new manager in to run the premises.  There was one food condition that was difficult to enforce.  There was an abatement notice in place. A large number of pubs had closed and this could be a vital community asset if the sound was managed.  The new licence holder had thirty years’ experience and would be a full-time manager.  Threatening customers was unacceptable, staff were aware of the conditions, CCTV was top quality and would be automatically available.  It would be useful in this part of Holloway Road.  There was no crime and disorder associated with the premises.  There was no TEN in place for the boxing match but this was an unintentional breach.  There had been previous TENs that had been used properly.  He asked that the Sub-Committee modify the conditions.

In response to questions the new designated premises supervisor advised that he had dealt with large crowds in horse racing venues and was comfortable with the customers in this pub.  He had held previous licences in London.  It was noted that the company was bought off the shelf. There had been a change of management 10 or 12 days ago and the notice of hearing had escalated matters.  The previous manager had now left the premises.  There had been management issues but the new manager had a long standing track record and a large amount of investment had been made.  This was a modest application with no increase in hours and the premises was still offering food. If this had been an application for a new premises licence it would not include this condition.  Previous management were aware of the conditions and it was accepted they were being breached. This was a harsh condition and people managing the business had to be trusted to comply.  It was noted that the walls had been stripped when the premise was a chicken shop. The licence was not appropriate to this style of venue and would be a much weaker licence if not varied.  The premises were capable of being well managed.  There had been no serious incidents. 

The resident stated that the applicant was trying to portray this condition as a modest condition.  The premises should only operate as a restaurant.  It did not have a public house licence. 

In response to questions from the licensing authority it was noted that the door supervisor who had threatened the resident was still worked at the premises however he had given a different version of events and stated that the resident had entered the public house shouting.  The applicant could not answer which security company was being used. It was noted that the previous designated premises supervisor had left on the 8 March and no TEN application had been made for the event on the 10 March. 

In summary, the police officer stated that the food condition was on the licence and there was an on-going breach of this condition.  It was a restaurant and not an alcohol led venue and the condition had been put on the licence for good reason. He was not reassured by what he had heard this evening.  The previous manager had now left.  The police officer would be happy to have a well run public house in the area.  He had spoken to the owners of the premises and he considered that their priorities were different.

The noise officer reported that the acoustic report was dated 22 January and no sound limiter had yet been installed.  On a visit on the 10 March she was able to hear customer voices. She considered that there should be a considerable increase in sound insulation.  She would wish to be informed of any works and would expect there to be no further delay.

The applicant was concerned that the premises would not open again if it stayed as a restaurant. He proposed a condition that there be an acoustic report, which took into account crowd noise, and that all reasonable works as recommended be undertaken.  He considered that a further acoustic report could give residents a good night’s sleep.  There were physical remedies to an obvious problem.  There were a small number of residents who had objected.  The premises could be and would be well run.  There should be safeguards.  The Sub-Committee could consider the previous track record of the DPS.  It was considered that a new application may have been a better option to a variation.  There had been a high level of investment.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence variation, in respect of Islington Sports Bar and Grill be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered all the written submissions and the oral submissions at the hearing made by the Applicants representative, the interested party (a resident), the solicitor for the applicant and the Licensing Authority, the Noise Team representative and the Police representative.

The following facts were not in dispute, namely that:-

The current licence holders transferred the licence in November 2018.

The Police and Licensing Authority informed the licensee that until the variation applied for was granted the premises must operate under the terms of the current licence,

They could operate on occasions as a public house by applying for temporary event notices and when they didn’t have these the premises had to operate as a restaurant, not a pub.

The licensee applied for 16 TENs in 2019,

The premises were found to be operating without a temporary events notice until 6am on 2^nd December 2018 when they were open to the public serving alcohol and were also operating without a notice on 10^th March 2019 in breach of the licensing conditions, this being after the licensee had submitted a TEN application that was rejected.

The licensee had not been complying with the condition in respect of meals on dates when there was no TEN in force.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted the submission by the interested party, that he had been threatened by a security guard at the premises when he went to complain about the noise levels. The Applicant confirmed that the employee was still employed by the applicant and an explanation from him had only been obtained on the day of the hearing.

The Licensing Sub-Committee further noted that the applicant apportioned all responsibility for the applicant’s failures referred to above as due to the actions or inactions of the previous manager (DPS) a Mr. O’Brien. It was stated that Mr. O’Brien had left the employ of the applicant on 8^th March 2019 and it was noted that he ceased to be a director of the company on the day of the hearing.

The Licensing Sub-Committee further took into consideration the fact that the applicant was appointing a new manager, Mr. Oliver Taggart, with 30 years- experience in public house management who the applicant hoped would turn matters around.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the 10^th March 2019 breach of conditions took place after Mr.O’Brien had left the employ of the applicant. The Applicant was specifically asked who was in control of the premises on 10^th March 2019 and the question could not be answered.

The Licensing Sub-Committee took into consideration that the premises fall into the Holloway and Finsbury Park Cumulative Impact Area and Licensing Policy 3 is applicable which states that there is a presumption of refusal unless the committee is satisfied that there will be no adverse cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

The Licensing Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a high standard of management since taking over the premises and that the proposed application if granted would add to the cumulative impact. The Applicant had not complied with licensing conditions and after full consideration of all representations made in writing and on the night verbally, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the granting of the application would not contribute to the existing impact of the licensed premises in that area.

The Licensing Sub-Committee concluded that refusal of the application was the reasonable and proportionate decision in light of all the submissions received.