Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that an email had been received from the applicant which stated that there were no plans to place tables outside the premises. It was intended to place two two-person benches outside with a maximum of 10 people standing outside.

A local resident raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact.  He stated that three out of nine premises would be bars.  In terms of planning use, the ground floor was A3 with A4 at the basement.  He was concerned about the planning situation for the outside space.  He stated that microbreweries had been granted B2 planning use in other areas and this application did state that the premises was a brewery. When patrons stood outside, residents had to walk in the road and many cyclists used the road.  The resident was concerned that the benches outside would not leave room for pedestrians and stated that there should be conditions to manage the outside area if the application was granted.

The applicant stated that the premises were too small for a brewery and in terms of planning use they would not be distributing any alcohol and were therefore not viewed as a factory.  They expected their clientele to be older people.  There would be no tables but would have two x two person benches outside to accommodate smokers.  They expected patrons to focus on their experience.  At their other branch they had door staff on Friday and Saturday until half an hour after close.  Conditions had been agreed with the police and noise teams.  Challenge 25 would be implemented.

In response to questions, particularly regarding cumulative impact, it was noted that the premises would sell 20 different beers in small sizes.  The applicant stated they were bringing a different concept to the area.  They were not a classic pub or restaurant but a premises offering tasting experiences.  They had a rotating menu of beers   Staff would be fully trained and customers would not be making a nuisance on the streets. CCTV had been installed to monitor the outside area.  A water drinking station was installed in the premises. Beer enthusiasts would travel the world to experience the Mikkeller brand.  There were a number of tables and seating within the venue and most customers sat down. Customers walked in and would know the Mikkeller brand.  They had tried to work with the community and taken the essence of the area to make their concept fit and to benefit the area.  They would be offering danish open sandwiches and coffee.  This would be a place where people could work.

The applicant agreed a commencement hour of 11am.

In summary, the resident was concerned that they had not undertaken market research with the community.  Their measures such as CCTV only recorded issues after the event and residents should not have to be inconvenienced.  This would add to the cumulative impact and 3 out of 9 premises would be licenced.

The applicant stated that they had been considering the area for about a year. 

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of The Good Old Days, 37/39 Exmouth Market, EC1R 4QL be granted to allow:-

a)    The provision of films from 11am to 11pm Monday to Wednesday and from 1pm until 10pm Thursdays to Sundays.

b)    The provision of live music from 11am until 10pm Monday to Sunday.

c)    The provision of recorded music from 11am until 11pm Monday to Thursday and from 11am until midnight Friday to Sunday.

d)    The on and off sales of alcohol from 11am until 11pm Monday to Thursday, from 11am until midnight Friday and Saturday and from 11am until 10pm on Sunday.

2)     That conditions detailed on pages 140-142 of the agenda 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 Clerkenwell 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.

Five local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committee heard concerns from the interested party regarding the cumulative impact. He stated that if this licence was granted there would be three bars in a stretch of nine properties. He also raised concerns regarding patrons outside the premises spilling out into the road and general public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant there were no plans to place any tables outside the premises other than two x two person benches and it was not expected that there would be more than 10 people standing outside at any given time.  They considered they would be bringing a different concept to the area with small servings of beer in a speciality venue.  This was not a classic pub or restaurant but was a premises that offered patrons tasting experiences with different beers. Staff would be fully trained and CCTV would be installed.  The Mikkeller brand was internationally acclaimed.  There would be a number of tables and seats in the venue and most patrons sat down in their venues to enjoy the experience. It was not a vertical drinking experience.  Food and a drinking water station would be available at the premises for patrons as well as a coffee machine.

The Sub-Committee took into account licensing policy 2 and the views of the responsible authorities, the proposed hours of operation, the type of customer likely to attend the premises and the potential impact on residents living in close proximity to the premises. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against granting the licence by demonstrating that, with the additional conditions agreed with the responsible authorities, there would be no negative cumulative impact on the licensing objectives through the grant of the licence. It was appropriate to the licensing objectives, proportionate and in the public interest to grant the premises licence.