Agenda item

The licensing officer introduced the applicant and the applicant’s representative. He stated that any issues in relation to the disposal of waste were being dealt with by the waste management team and therefore this was not an issue for the licensing sub-committee. The waste management team was working with premises individually to relocate collections to Essex Road. The licensing officer also stated that Planning had stated that the information provided in the applicant’s submissions indicated that the primary use of the premises was a café. This was within use Class E. The submissions had indicated there were some uses which would not fall within use Class E but these were infrequent. It appeared that the use was compliant with the lawful use of the site.

The licensing officer stated that 17 local resident objections had been received and one resident was in attendance.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities, as conditions had been agreed with the police, noise and trading standards.

The Sub-Committee heard from a resident that he had had concerns relating to noise and disruption arising from waste collection in the early hours; however he confirmed that this was now no longer an issue as it had been addressed by the licensing officer.  He then outlined his concerns relating to the capacity of up to 40 customers set out in the application and raised concerns about the small size of the premises relative to that capacity. The resident raised concern about potential noise emanating from open windows and doors and customers spilling out on to the street in the early hours and adding to the general disruption in Camden Passage caused by licensed premises. He was concerned that the viewing of films on the upper floor, probably with windows open, would add to the noise nuisance. He also expressed concern relating to the sale of alcohol at 4pm in an area where there were schools.

The applicant confirmed that the capacity set out in the application was for health and safety purposes only and that there was seating for only 16 customers upstairs and 8 downstairs. The applicant outlined that the premises was a social enterprise working to train and provide employment for refugees.

The applicant stated that any music would be background music only at such a level that conversation could be heard above it and there would only be one speaker on the upper floor of the premises.

The applicant’s representative confirmed that the premises would not be used to show movies other than to showcase the aims of the social enterprise. He confirmed the premises would serve alcohol only to seated customers and that premises would operate as a café only up until 4pm and would serve alcohol only from 6pm-9pm when it would be used as a community space to raise awareness of issues relating to refugees.

In response to a member’s question as to how the applicant intended to address the issue relating to open windows raised by the resident, the applicant stated that the windows would only be open on rare occasions as the premises had good ventilation and did not experience direct sunlight in daytime hours.

In response to a member’s question, the applicant confirmed the application relating to live music had been formally withdrawn.

A member asked how the applicant intended to enforce the Challenge 25 policy. The applicant responded stating that all staff were being given training on Challenge 25 and were part of a 12-week training programme in hospitality. All staff were briefed prior to working shifts and serving alcohol and the business had joined the Business Watch Group.

In summary, the resident stated that there had been 17 representations from residents which was unusual for this area. The main concerns revolved around noise and customers spilling out on to the street after drinking, given that the capacity being requested would render the premises effectively a wine bar. He stated that customers should be seated and that it was unrealistic not to open windows in the premises particularly when it was recommended to reduce the spread of Covid.

In response to comments made by the applicant the licensing officer confirmed that the police had agreed conditions that there would be no vertical drinking and there would also be no recorded music.

In summary, the applicant confirmed that there had been some confusion over the number of customers in the application and that alcohol would only be served to seated customers; the business planned to increase social awareness; create a pleasant place for everyone and all steps would be taken to ensure no nuisance to residents.

RESOLVED:

1)      That a new premises licence in respect of Trampoline, 27 Camden Passage, N1 8EA be granted to allow:

a)      the sale of alcohol, on and off the premises from Monday to Sunday from 11am until 10pm.

b)      the provision of film, Wednesday to Sunday, 6pm to 10pm.

c)       the premises to be open to the public, Monday to Sunday from 7am to 10pm.

2)      That conditions detailed on pages 50 to 52 of the agenda be applied to the licence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting 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 Angel and Upper Street 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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 4.  The Council has adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Licensing policy 4 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 or subject to certain limitations, 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.

Seventeen local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities, as conditions had been agreed with the police, noise and trading standards.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Officer that any issues in relation to the disposal of waste were being dealt with by the waste management team and therefore this was not an issue for the licensing sub-committee.

The Sub-Committee heard from a resident that he had concerns relating to noise and disruption arising from waste collection in the early hours; however he confirmed that this was now no longer an issue.  He then outlined his concerns relating to the capacity of up to 40 set out in the application, the small size of the premises relative to that capacity; noise emanating from inevitably open windows given the size of the premises and the fact that customers would spill out on to the street in the early hours adding to the general disruption already suffered by residents in Camden Passage from licensed premises. He was concerned that the viewing of films on the upper floor, probably with windows open, would add to the noise nuisance. He also expressed concern relating to the sale of alcohol at 4pm in an area where there are schools.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant that the capacity set out in the application was for Health and Safety purposes only and that there was seating for only 16 customers upstairs and 8 downstairs. The applicant outlined that the premises was a social enterprise working to train and provide employment for refugees.

The applicant stated that any music would be background music only at such a level that conversation could be heard above it and there would only be one speaker on the upper floor of the premises.

The applicant’s representative confirmed that the premises would not be used to show movies other than to showcase the aims of the social enterprise. He confirmed the premises would serve alcohol only to seated customers and that premises would operate as a café only up until 4pm and would serve alcohol only from 6pm-9pm when it would be used as a community space to raise awareness of issues relating to refugees.

A member asked how the applicant intended to address the issue relating to open windows raised by the resident and whether the application relating to live music had been formally withdrawn. The applicant confirmed the application relating to live music had been formally withdrawn. The applicant stated that the windows would only be open on rare occasions as the premises has good ventilation and does not experience direct sunlight in daytime hours.

A member asked how the applicant intended to enforce the Challenge 25 policy. The applicant responded stating that all staff were being given training on Challenge 25 and were part of a 12-week training programme in hospitality. All staff were briefed prior to working shifts and serving alcohol and the business had joined the Business Watch Group.

The resident summarised his concerns by stating there had been seventeen representations from residents which he said is unusual and fairly significant. The main concerns revolved around noise and customers spilling out on to the street after drinking, given that the capacity being requested would render the premises effectively a wine bar. He stated it was unrealistic not to open windows in the premises particularly in current times.

The licensing officer confirmed that the police had agreed conditions that there would be no vertical drinking and there would be no recorded music.

The applicant confirmed that there had been some confusion over the number of customers in the application and that alcohol would only be served to seated customers; the business planned to increase social awareness; create a pleasant place for everyone and all steps would be taken to ensure no nuisance to residents.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 5 and 6.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, with the conditions agreed, meant that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.

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