Agenda item

The licensing officer advised that additional paperwork had been circulated to members of the Sub-Committee and both parties.

The planning officer advised that under the new planning class system, which had commenced on the 1 September 2020, both A1 retail and A3 café were in the same ‘E’ use class.  Planning consent would therefore not be required for a change of use from a retail shop to a café/restaurant.  A retrospective application would be sought for structures and decking in the garden.

Local residents objected to the application.  It was stated that they shared a boundary wall with the café and there had been no mention of the use of the garden space by the applicant in the planning application and she considered that the use of this space would be ancillary and would be a change of use.  The café was in a cumulative impact area. The applicant had not submitted an outside seating plan and 40 persons could be seated outside. The area was above 190 square meters and she considered this to fall outside permitted development. She considered that the applicant was not stating the true use for the area. The staff had not abided by the hours and caused hours of disturbance to residents creating a major impact and had meant that they were unable to use their own outside space using a local park instead.  This would not be possible in the colder months. Tables had been placed against the boundary wall and many customers were smoking causing a health risk to the family. Her main concerns included the lack of planning permission, toxic smells, compromised privacy, a considerable increase in numbers leading to cumulative impact. She asked that residents be put before business profit. She asked that conditions be placed on the license regarding the types and times of use. She had logged issues but had been advised not to do so now, although issues were still constant.

In response to the amount of use that the residents considered would be appropriate, it was stated that there would need to be mitigation measures installed by the applicant before this could even be considered. The planning officer advised that the planning use covered the whole unit including the garden and was irrespective of the floor area.

The applicant advised that the premises was a coffee shop and eatery serving good quality food and coffee.  They were not required to seek planning consent. They employed thirteen staff and had a professional and committed team. The café was doing well thanks largely to being able to use the rear garden. They were requesting an alcohol licence in response to requests from customers, this was not a pub/ bar and it was nice for the choice of an alcoholic drink with a meal and to help with  revenue for the café.  The café had been hard hit during Covid 19 and this would allow trade for a few evenings a week.  They were requesting later hours on three evenings a week Thursday to Saturday. The garden would close at 9pm and this would allow one evening meal sitting. Music would be played at ambient levels and back doors would be locked at 9pm.  No rubbish would be removed after 6pm and staff would be monitoring the space during the evening.  CCTV had been installed and it was proposed to put rubber buffers on chairs to limit the noise. Prominent signs would be put up and there would be good communication with neighbours. There were aware of complaints from one particular neighbour but stated that this was not the majority consensus. Complaints had commenced from the application date.  There had been more than 50 complaints but no issues had been found and they it was hoped that this would be taken into consideration. The applicant and the evening manager would both have a personal licence. There would be table service with meals. A local neighbour spoke in support of the premises. She stated that she worked in a stressful environment and had been working from home and proper rest was important.   She had no issues with the premises and noise levels had been ambient. She was in meetings all the time at home and background noise had not been a problem. Families enjoying a drink and meal had been acceptable noise and she had not felt disturbed. There had been constant communication with the applicant who asked if she’d had any issues.  She understands that the objectors had a family. Her flat overlooked the garden and she was fine with the venue remaining open later.

In response to questions it was noted that the neighbour who supported the application had the same view of the garden area as the neighbour who objected to the application. It was noted that the plan did not show the tables and chairs in the outside space and there would be 8 tables in the garden and sheds to accommodate patrons. There would be approximately 30 patrons in the garden at the most. It was noted that there were no smoking signs on the tables that were alongside the party wall. It could be possible to put planting between the tables and the party wall and the applicant was open to reasonable agreement regarding this.

In summary, the objector stated that she had submitted a detailed 24 page account. The on-going anti-social behaviour issues had not been validated as, due to Covid 19, visitation had not been possible in properties.  She asked that there be a fair hearing by allowing validated evidence and asked that the matter be adjourned.

The applicant stated that the business had just scraped through the pandemic and this would make a difference to their survival. Money had been raised through crowdfunding by 300 customers.  The garden was very important to the business and for those patrons who had no outside space. They were sympathetic to their neighbours and only one neighbour had complained consistently and it was hoped that this would not affect their application.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of  in respect of Common Ground, 49 Stroud Green Road, N4 be granted to allow the sale of alcohol, on supplies only, and recorded music from Monday to Thursday 12 noon until 5pm, Friday 12 noon until 10.30pm, Saturday 9am until 10.30pm and on Sunday from 9.30 am until 5pm. 

2)     That conditions detailed on pages 166 and 167 of the agenda be applied to the licencewith the following additional conditions.

·         The garden area be closed at 5.30pm except on Fridays and Saturdays when it can remain open until 9pm.

·         There will be no music played in the garden.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting was held under regulations made under the Coronovirus Act 2020 and it was facilitated by Zoom.

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 Holloway Road and Finsbury Park 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 operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. This is a commercially busy area of Islington and, as stated in Licensing Policy 3, paragraphs 52 – 53, the licensing authority is committed to working with potential applicants to maintain a well-managed evening economy that meets residents and business needs while minimising any adverse impacts in terms of crime, disorder, nuisance and anti-social behaviour. Local issues in the area are associated with the late night venues, alcohol related anti-social behaviour especially as a result of drinking in the street and negative impacts associated with visitors to large scale sporting and other events. Licensing policy 3, paragraph 56, states that applications with comprehensive operating schedules which are not alcohol led and which have hours of operation consistent with framework hours may be regarded as possible exceptions to the special policy if applicants can demonstrate that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that there would be no negative cumulative impact on the licensing objectives by granting the licence.

However, as referred to in Licensing Policy 24, use of a garden with tables and chairs for smoking drinking and eating can cause nuisance to neighbours. Where smoking drinking and eating takes place outside the licensing authority expects applicants to provide comprehensive details in their operating schedule on the location of outside areas, how they will be managed to prevent noise and smell, arrangements for clearing tables and chairs and preventing nuisance from smoke fumes to residents living in close proximity.

Three local resident objections and one local business objection had been received.  Conditions had been agreed with the Police and the Noise Team. 

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

The residents questioned whether the use of the garden would be permitted by planning. A planning officer was present at the hearing to clarify issues related to planning. He explained that prior to September 2020 there were concerns about a change of use from a shop to a café/restaurant. However, due to a change in law these concerns no longer applied and the use of the premises was authorised as both A1 retail and A3 café were in the same ‘E’ use class.

The residents referred to café staff working long hours and then socialising and said that the café had strategically placed patrons against the party wall so that smoke entered their home.  The Sub-Committee asked the applicant whether some space could be made immediately next to the party wall, for example could pot plants be placed in the area? The applicant stated that there were no smoking signs on the tables next to the party wall and pot plants had been placed alongside the wall.  The outside area was very important to the viability of the business especially with the problems caused by Covid 19. However, they were open to reaching a reasonable agreement about what to do.

The residents had logged 50 complaints with the noise team on an almost daily basis throughout July and August 2020. They had now been advised not to report nuisance on the ASB portal and they felt they were in a Catch 22 situation.

The Sub-Committee asked the objectors what level of use of the garden they would find acceptable. The residents said that a lot of work mitigating noise etc would have to be done by the applicant before they could talk of appropriate times and use of the garden. They looked to the applicant to take that step. The applicant stated that there would be no more than 20 people in the garden and it would be closed at 9pm and they did not play music outside.

The Sub-Committee noted that the residents had children who would need to go to school on a Friday and might be disturbed by noise from the garden late at night.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the conditions, reduced hours on a Thursday and ceasing use of the garden by 9pm on Fridays and Saturdays and 5. 30pm on other days of the week would promote the licensing objectives. The granting of the premises licence would be unlikely to have an adverse cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and in the public interest.