Skip to content

Agenda item

Rust and Roses, 90 Old Street, EC1V 9AX - Premises licence variation

Minutes:

The Licensing Officer had no additional information to report.

 

The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that the premises was situated in a  cumulative impact area and the application sought to extend the hours operated. The current conditions required food to be sold with alcohol. However, there was photo evidence available in the agenda pack indicating that alcohol was being sold without food. Complaints had been made to the Council via the ASB reporting line about the numbers of people congregating outside the premises and not having a meal with their drinks.  She further noted that current planning permission was not in line with the times proposed on the new application and asked whether it had been sought. There had been no representations received from the Noise Team, although complaints had been made to the Council’s ASB line.

 

One of the interested parties stated that, when the previous licence had been applied for in 2014, it had been for similar late hours, straight drinking, no food service and Sunday opening.  The application was rejected by the Licensing Sub-Committee in 2015 and a condition was applied that alcohol should be ancillary to a meal.  This had worked for local residents.  Nothing had changed as far as the premises being in the Bunhill cumulative impact area was concerned, apart from more disturbances on the street as a result of alcohol.  This application was for cocktails, made from strong alcohol, vertical drinking and gin parties, which had been advertised by the premises. There was no need for another unrestricted bar in the area, which would tempt people from the pubs to these premises.  It did not matter whether people were standing or sitting down in the premises. The current conditions on the licence were admirable. There should be no change in hours at the premises, alcohol should remain ancillary to food and there should be no Sunday opening. 

 

For the record, Councillor Wayne stated that he had been a member of the Sub-Committee which had agreed the conditions on the licence in 2014.

 

Another interested party stated that the current managers had wanted “over and above” since they had moved in and they clearly wanted to run a cocktail and gin bar, with stag and hen parties too.  On social media and the website, alcohol was at the forefront of who the managers were. They had broken the terms of their licence by having tables and chair outside the premises and vertical drinking both inside and outside the premises.  They should not be rewarded by allowing any new arrangements.  It was the wrong place for a cocktail bar.

 

Another interested party said that they lived opposite the premises and noted that fewer people had been congregating outside the premises. If permission was granted to extend the operating hours, it was likely that his sleep would be disturbed.

 

In response to members’ questions to the interested parties, it was noted that the noise was from people congregating on the street rather than the premises and that the staff inside appeared unaware of the noise. Once people left the premises, the staff were unable to control them as there were no bouncers employed.

 

The applicant’s legal representative stated that, mindful of the fact that the premises was situated in a cumulative impact area, the applicants had substantially amended their application and were now applying only to remove the conditions on the licence requiring that alcohol be ancillary to a meal and to request that opening hours on Saturdays commence at 11.00 hours, rather than 18.00 hours.  The applicants were keen to ensure that their premises existed comfortably within the area and the amendments now sought to the licence were less likely to have impact.

 

The request for the removal of the conditions relating to the requirement for alcohol to be served ancillary to a meal related to historical legislation.  Staff would have to be spread more thinly if dealing with food orders and serving alcohol, and he suggested that it would be best for staff to concentrate on residents’ concerns. On the proposed change to Saturday hours, he suggested that they were restrictive now but an extension to permit opening at 11.00hours would not heavily impact on the cumulative impact area and would not cause further disturbance to residents. Security staff at the premises would be increased, although there was no direct link to anti-social behaviour in the area and these premises. CCTV would be upgraded to ensure that the applicants were complying with all measures.

 

On planning, permission would be obtained and complied with. The applicants were aware that they needed to seek planning permission for their proposed extended hours. This was a nuanced and focused application to take account of the fact that the premises was situated in a cumulative impact area.

 

The Council’s legal adviser sought confirmation from the applicant’s legal adviser that the conditions proposed by the Licensing Authority at Annex 3 on page 25 of the agenda pack would be agreed by the applicant and this was confirmed. In response to a further question, the applicant’s legal adviser stated that two SIA qualified security staff would be employed at the premises.

 

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, the applicant’s legal adviser confirmed that the new variation application included the removal of Sunday opening.  The only variation as to hours now related to Saturday and a request that opening hours commence from 11.00hours. He confirmed that the applicants wished to remove the condition requiring that the supply of alcohol must be ancillary to a meal, but would retain a table service in terms of alcohol sold ie “To remove Conditions 8 and 9 from Annex 2 of the premises licence and include the following condition : The supply of alcohol is restricted to persons seated within the premises and supplied by means of table service only” (page 28 of the agenda pack).

 

In response to questions from members about the capacity of the premises, the applicant’s legal adviser said that it was currently 40 seats, including the yard. Members noted that, at present, if the variation to the premises licence was granted, the applicants would be in breach of planning conditions on the basis that it was being used as A4, rather than A3 use and planning condition 2 permitted opening hours from 11.00 to 22.30 hours on Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The applicants were asked why they were making the premises licence variation application now which, if granted, would mean that they would be subject to planning enforcement.

 

The applicant’s legal adviser replied that the applicant would not do anything to breach planning conditions.  The applicants would submit a planning application in due course.

 

Members of the Sub-Committee noted that, even with the more restricted variation now being sought, the premises would be changing from a restaurant to a bar. Members asked the applicant’s legal representative to specify how the Council could be confident that there would be no adverse impact in this cumulative impact area.  The applicant’s legal representative stated that there would still be a full kitchen on the premises and a major part of the offering would be food.  The character of the premises would change, but it was hard to say that it would bring no impacts to the area, but they were likely to be reduced impacts. The applicants were aware that their premises was situated in a cumulative impact area, the food offer would remain and there had had been a major investment in the kitchen.  All of these would have minimal impact on the cumulative impact area.

 

Referring to the comments made by the interested parties, particularly that the premises had been operating as a cocktail bar for some months, the applicant’s legal representative commented that the premises operated as a restaurant with cocktails and acknowledged that there had been promotion of the cocktail offer, but it was not a cocktail bar.

 

Noting references on page 40 of the agenda pack to “later collection by Deliveroo or Uber…..” , the applicant’s legal adviser confirmed that food orders delivered by Deliveroo linked back to the premises being a restaurant.  He suggested that time limits could be considered to lessen any impact on local residents. However, the applicants would not be able to control Uber activities, since that was geared around people phoning for Uber services. He suggested that part of the role of the two SIA approved security staff could be to ensure that people do not congregate on the street, outside the premises.  The primary aim would be to encourage people to come into the premises and not to send food deliveries out.

 

In summary, the interested parties said that the applicant was attempting to change the nature of the premises, which had operated under the current conditions for the past five years. She noted the sale of food having been described as an “offering” and said that deliveries to and from the premises were a nuisance. In response to a further question about the nights which the SIA security staff were expected to work, he said that they would certainly work on Friday and Saturday nights and other nights when the premises was busy.  The applicants could not be certain at this time, but there would be flexibility in the hours worked by security staff. One of the interested parties suggested that the security staff would be under pressure on Saturdays, particularly if hen and stag parties were taking place on the premises. The applicants did not have a good track record of operating under their current licence conditions and did not have much experience of running a licensed premises.  The street on which the premises was situated was very narrow and a busy highway.

 

The applicants’ representative stated that the variation application did not fundamentally change the character of the premises. The applicants were aware that they were situated in a cumulative impact area and understood the concerns of the local residents. However, the application should be granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

(a) That the application for a premises licence variation in respect of Rust and Roses, 90 Old Street, EC1V 9AX, be granted to permit the following:-

The sale by retail of alcohol, on supplies only, on Saturdays, from 14:00 to 23:00 hours;

(b) That all the existing conditions be retained, including those in Annex 3.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered all the written submissions and the oral submissions made at the hearing from the Licensing Authority, 3 local residents and the applicant’s representative.

 

The variation application was substantially amended at the hearing.

 

The following two proposed amendments to the premises licence were left for consideration by the Committee:

 

Firstly, that the sale of alcohol, on supplies only, on Saturdays, be from 11am to 11pm, instead of 6pm to 10pm, and secondly, that Conditions 8 and 9 of the licence which required that the service of alcohol shall only be to a person seated at a table taking a meal and that the alcohol be ancillary to that meal be replaced by a condition that the supply of alcohol be restricted to persons seated within the premises at tables.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted the residents’ concern that the variations sought would enable the licensee to use the premises as a cocktail bar as opposed to a restaurant and that the extra hours on Saturday could be used for stag or hen parties.  It also noted representations from residents and responsible authorities that the condition on the existing licence had been breached by the applicants.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was also mindful of the need to enable the applicant to operate a profitable and successful business at the premises.

 

The premises were in the Bunhill Cumulative Impact area and the applicant when seeking a variation of an existing licence or a new licence must demonstrate that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.( Licensing Policy 3).

 

The additional hours requested on Saturdays were consistent with framework hours. (Licensing Policy 6).

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was of the opinion that, by granting the application to extend the supply of alcohol, on premises on Saturdays from 2.00pm to 11pm and retaining the existing conditions on the licence, this would support the people visiting the area during the day, encourage people to stay in the area after work and support the wider cultural offer in the area. The Licensing Sub-Committee decided that this was a proportionate and reasonable decision to the application, taking all the above mentioned concerns and representations into consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: