Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that a security plan and a supporting statement from the applicant had been circulated following agenda despatch.

The Licensing Authority stated that the premises was in a cumulative impact area and they did not consider that this had been addressed in the initial application. The additional papers had gone some way to addressing the cumulative impact except in relation to hours. No reason had been given for why the hours requested were beyond hours set out in the licensing policy.

The police stated that the concern was primarily towards the hours requested.  They had no opposition to the applicant who had run pubs in both Leeds and London. They were concerned with the nature of the venue in the Finsbury Park cumulative impact area. They considered that, with his experience, they were supportive of hours that were slightly beyond framework hours but not those applied for. They may re-consider after six months to a year of opening. He stated that the police conditions had not yet been responded to.

In response to questions, the police stated that the onus was on the applicant to put forward mitigation in a cumulative impact area.  The police considered this to be a good and rounded application but the hours went beyond what they would be comfortable with. They stated that the ‘Arsenal’ conditions were standard and considered that no sales of alcohol for an hour after matches helped mitigate the issues of quick drinking after a football match.

The noise officer reported that they had received an acoustic report at 5.30pm but had not had a chance to consider it in detail. They did have significant concerns and would want to have a comprehensive set of conditions.

The resident spoke in objection to the application.  It was stated that the venue was located below a resident block with more than 200 flats above. The noise report had only just been received. No resident had been contacted by the applicant. Live music until 2 or 3 am in the morning was a concern. The flats were occupied by families with children and the hours were anti-social for these occupiers. She raised concerns about how the police would be able to protect the area.

In response to questions, the resident stated that she was on the 5^th floor, she could clearly hear neighbours play music through the floor and the walls were very thin.

The applicant’s representative stated that the key concern was in relation to hours. The applicant and the operators had 30 years’ experience and were they type of operator that you would want to be in this area. Planning permission was given to a major mixed use development of residential and restaurants and cafes. This was a modern development with reams of conditions, many relating to the level of noise escape. It was also intended to install a concrete slab over the premises. The conditions were a key protection for residents.

She stated that members could step outside policy hours and when looking at the merits of the application, she invited the Sub-Committee to do so. The hours were needed to make the venture viable and would also provide jobs for local people. The hospitality industry was currently on its knees. This was an area that had suffered and this application could change the tone and nature of the area away from the more traditional pub. The frontage, with more CCTV and lights, would be a deterrent opposite a 24 hour station. This was a good quality application with a good quality dispersal policy. The cumulative impact area had been dealt with. The licensing policy came in some time ago and the evidence was dated. Covid 19 has had an impact and the situation is very different now to that when the policy was first imposed. The site had a dedicated planning permission and there was no reason to refuse the hours. Licensing was a permissive regime and if a premises was not causing an issue at midnight what would be different at 1 or 3 am? The application, if granted, could then be reviewed if there were problems. Live music was deregulated and there was no restriction up until 11pm. The licence could be controlled by noise conditions as proposed by conditions 15 and 16 of the report. This was not a live music venue, music was supplementary and this was a food led bar. A condition that required a noise management plan, agreed by the Environmental Health team was offered by the applicant. The noise officer would then have the chance to finalise the noise report to the satisfaction of all. She underlined that the Government was recommending that hospitality deserved the support of local and national government and these were the operators that would be wanted in this unit.

In response to questions, it was noted that the planning consent was dated 2012. There had been very detailed attenuation conditions that had been discharged more recently and would have been signed off. The applicant’s representative stated that the cumulative impact policy would have followed an evidence base at the end of 2017 but was not in compliance with the current police and crime bill. The evidence base was considered by the applicant to be old evidence and would not be the same now, beyond Covid 19. In response to the 3am licensing hours sought, the applicant’s representative stated that the responsible authorities had agreed that the hours could be stepped outside framework hours in this case, if noise could be controlled at 2am;  it could be controlled at 3am and that the applicant was there to make their business work.  There was no basis in the licensing regime on the grounds of need. In response to the questions regarding the difference in impact between 9pm and 2am it was stated that there were no restrictions regarding live music until 11pm. It was submitted that if you could control noise escape at 11pm, then you could also control noise at 1am, 2am or 3 am. She stated that residents would not be impacted at any time. The noise team were not saying that noise could not be controlled but were seeking agreement on the conditions.

In summary, the Licensing Authority stated that this was a good application and reasonable submission. The new Licensing Policy would commence from January 2022 and consultation would have to be carried out again for this. The hours were for the Sub-Committee to decide although she considered that the applicant had made a reasonable case for later hours. There were noise conditions in place but there will be noise/nuisance from patrons leaving the venue and that it had not been outlined how this would be managed.

The police stated that the concern regarding the application for late hours remained. They would support framework hours and the extension as detailed in their proposed conditions.

The noise officer stated that they had concerns about noise outbreak. The structural noise had not been addressed and noise outbreak was very different at 11pm rather than 3am. Disturbance would be preferable at 11pm than 3am.

The resident was concerned about the patrons who would eat at 2am in the morning. She did not consider that cameras would help. The alleyway was not dark as there was a major supermarket there. She understood that this was a modern building but it was not completely sound proofed. She was concerned about the appropriateness of opening the venue after football matches.

The applicant’s representative stated that this was mixed office, residential building opposite a 24 hour station and patrons would not be the only people around the area. Lighting, staff, CCTV and security would all deter poor behaviour. It was speculation to ask who would want to eat so late.  The operators would not offer this if patrons did not want it. This was not a vertical drinking establishment but a food led establishment.

In response to a question regarding consultation, the applicant stated that they had not had any communication with residents. This process was not required. The legal requirements were complied with and the applicant could not be judged on a process that does not exist.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Station to Station, 2 City North Place N4 be granted to allow:-

a)   The sale by retail of alcohol, on & off supplies, Mondays to Wednesdays from 11 am until midnight, Thursdays, Fridays & Saturdays from 11am until 12.30am and Sundays from 11am until 11pm.

b)   The showing of films, the performance of live music, the playing of recorded music, the performance of dance and the provision of indoor sports, , Mondays to Wednesdays from 11 am until midnight, Thursdays, Fridays & Saturdays from 11am until 12.30am and Sundays from 11am until 11pm

c)    The provision of late night refreshment, Monday to Wednesdays 11pm until midnight and Thursdays to Saturdays from 11pm until 12.30.

d)   The premises to be open to the public, Mondays to Wednesdays from 7am until 12.30, Thursdays to Saturdays from 7am until 1 am and Sundays from 7am until 11.30pm.

e)   The new application is also to allow the following non-standard timings for all authorised licensable activities.

Until 12.30am on Sundays before Bank Holiday Monday, St Patricks Day, Valentine’s Day, Boxing Day, Easter Monday and the Thursday before Good Friday.

New Year’s Eve: From the start of permitted hours on 31 December to the start of permitted hours on 1 January.

2)     Conditions detailed on pages 89 to 93 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following additional conditions:-

·         The applicant shall submit a noise management plan to be agreed by the Environmental Health team.

·         Conditions 32 and 33 shall be deleted.

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

The Sub-Committee considered the written representations from the Responsible Authorities, the Applicant and its Counsel as well as the written representations from 18 residents.

In addition, the Sub-Committee considered the oral representations made by the Applicants Counsel, Sarah Clover, the resident and from the Licensing Authority, the Police, and the Noise Team.

The premises are situated within the Holloway and Finsbury Park Cumulative Impact Area. Licensing Policy 3 and 6 apply.

The Sub-Committee noted that both the Licensing Authority and the Police were generally supportive of the application, operating schedule and the proposed management of the new business.

In the initial submissions, the Licensing Authority expressed concern that the cumulative impact had not been addressed by the applicant it the papers. Counsel for the Applicant subsequently made further written submissions and the Licensing Authority stated that they were satisfied that the issue had been addressed. They were however still concerned about the hours sought in the application being significantly outside the framework hours and how this would negatively impact on the licensing objectives.

In his oral submissions before the Sub-Committee, the noise team representative stated that a set of conditions had been sent to the Applicant but they had not received any meaningful response from the Applicant.

The Police, in the oral submissions, recommended flexibility in relation to the framework hours but less than that requested by the applicant.  The Sub-Committee noted the Police concerns about people leaving the premises at 2am and 3am in this busy area with a high crime rate and high rates of anti-social behaviour.

The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s submissions that the premises should be described as led mainly by food and not alcohol. The Sub-Committee took this into consideration as well as the possible exceptions to the Holloway and Finsbury Park CIA provisions, namely if the premises are not alcohol led, the licence requested would be in the framework hours, the premises provide live music and other cultural activities.

In relation to this particular application, the hours sought were significantly outside the framework hours on Thursdays to Saturdays and the concerns in relation to Noise had not been addressed sufficiently as at the date of the hearing.

The Sub-Committee accordingly decided that the appropriate remedy in relation to the noise issue would be for a condition to be inserted into the licence to the effect that it may not operate until a Noise Management Plan had been produced by the Applicant and agreed between the Applicant and the Council's Environmental Health Team.

The Sub-Committee was in agreement to grant the licence and be flexible in relation to the hours requested for the licence but not to the extent requested by the Applicant.

The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the licence for the hours set out in the decision with the conditions was the proportionate and appropriate decision taking all the factors into consideration.