Agenda item

The licensing officer introduced the residents and the applicant. It was noted that amended conditions had been circulated. The noise team had agreed one amended condition and had withdrawn their representation.

The Licensing Authority stated that the applicant had a previous licence which had been surrendered as they had found it difficult to comply with the conditions around the outside area. They had since been found selling alcohol without a licence. The premises mainly has runs of plays a couple of times a year. The main noise nuisance was from people outside in the courtyard and they asked that this area be managed quickly, quietly and no drinks be allowed outside.

In response to questions, it was noted that the noise officer had replaced two conditions in the original report with three conditions numbered 48-50 on the tabled appendix. A noise condition had been proposed, agreed by the applicant, that no more than 10 patrons smoke outside. The Licensing Authority proposed that this number be five patrons. The Licensing Authority stated that she had received no communication from the applicant.

One resident stated that she had concerns regarding the noise management of the outside space. After leaving the premises, patrons gathered and were noisy. The exit was in the courtyard and there had not been a show where staff/patrons had not gathered outside speaking loudly and swearing. The end time of 10pm was far too late. Another resident stated that their bedroom window was only five metres away from a shared courtyard. Half of the space belonged to the pub next door. The area acted as an acoustic echo chamber and even whispering was amplified. The Englefield pub garden closed at 9pm for this reason. The pub garden was not problematic but the Big House premises caused issues. Soundproofing in the premises was rendered useless as doors were kept open.  It was considered that the management had disregarded residents. Alcohol was not allowed to be sold but had been without a licence.  He did not think that conditions would not be adhered to.

The applicant stated that this was a theatre company and small charity that worked with young people. The sale of alcohol was ancillary to their main work.  They had surrendered their licence due to covid and the concern about patrons mixing indoors. Regarding the noise management she had been in discussion with the noise team and had agreed to hold audience members inside the building after 9pm with no drinks allowed outside. Theatre shows could not always be guaranteed a finish time but would finish by 10pm and audiences and staff would quickly leave. They had agreed to stop the sale of alcohol to encourage orderly egress. Holding people inside would work to manage the noise.  An additional sound corridor. They had opened windows and doors during covid to allow for ventilation. Having a 9pm close of the courtyard except for smoking was in line with the pub. They encouraged people to move away and were actively trying to improve on their noise management.  They had a contact number for residents and would also respond to emails and would work with residents. With the conditions they would manage the noise as much as possible.

In response to questions, it was noted that their planning permission would require doors and windows to remain closed. The applicant stated that there was a period of time, during covid restrictions, where premises could open for a small audience. As a small charity, not putting on theatre productions would have a detrimental effect to their financial stability.  The young people understood that noise levels needed to be kept down and moved on when requested. They did not have issues with their behaviour. They considered that they would have been able to manage their previous licence. They had a duty manager who was aware of the procedures and plans and were aware of the expectations. They had tried to adhere to the conditions on the licence although it had now been surrendered. The applicant stated that she thought she had contacted the Licensing Authority through the licensing officer. They had been given direction that they could run a donation bar but the licensing team had later informed them that this was not possible. All staff would be Challenge 25 trained, CCTV had been installed and would assist with risk management.  They had a refusals book in place. The Sub-Committee considered that the applicant should cultivate a better relationship with the licensing team in the future.

In summary, the Licensing Authority stated that the issues were around the courtyard area and staff were required to manage the process of exiting and clearing the courtyard.

The residents asked that the end hour be earlier than 10pm. There was a concern regarding noise from smokers and they considered that smokers be moved out of the courtyard area. The second resident stated that the courtyard was an acoustic chamber and his main concern was loitering after 9pm and audiences and staff should leave as early as possible.

The applicant stated that there was a robust noise management plan in place which was in line with the neighbouring public house. No open drinks would be taken outside and neighbours would be respected.

RESOLVED

1)      That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of The Big House, 151 Englefield Road, N1 3LH, be granted to allow:-

a)    The provision of plays from 16:00 until 22:00 Monday to Friday and from 12:00 until 22:00 on Saturdays;

b)    The provision of films, recorded music, live music and dancing from 16:00 until 21:30 Monday to Friday and from 12:00 until 21:30;

c)    The sale of alcohol on and off the premises from 12:00 until 21:45 Monday to Saturday.

d)    Opening hours from 09:30 until 22:00 Monday to Saturday

2)      That conditions as tabled at the meeting subject to the deletion of number 48 be applied to the licence. 

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting was facilitated by Zoom.

This was an application for a new premises licence. The Licensing Authority explained that the application had been made at their invitation in order to regularise the arrangements after Licensing Officers had reported the sale of alcohol without a licence. The Applicant said that this was a misunderstanding on their part on how to run a donation bar. She accepted that in hindsight she should have sought advice from the Licensing Authority beforehand. A previous licence had been granted but was then surrendered in circumstances which were unclear at the start of the meeting.

The Sub-Committee read all the material and considered the oral submissions made by the Applicant, residents and the Licensing Authority. Conditions had been agreed with the Police and been accepted and at a late stage with the Noise Team. Representations had therefore been withdrawn by all responsible authorities apart from the Licensing Authority.

The application related to a project run by a charity helping young people from the care system. It ran drop- in workshops, and open house projects, offering mentoring and pastoral support. It was not proposed that alcohol should consumed or sold in relation to these. Alcohol would be sold at the theatrical events which only took place at certain times of the year, for about eight weeks, from April to May and November to December.

The residents complained about noise from excited young people outside late into the evening. Some bedrooms were five meters from the outside area and children’s sleep was affected. The outside area acted as an echo chamber so that any noise was amplified. They also complained about the use of bad language that could be overheard by children. A number of complaints were made about the use of the premises during the Covid-19 Lockdown and under the previous licence. Although the premises had some degree of insulation under the Noise Management Plan, windows and doors had been kept open allowing noise to escape. Residents suggested that the applicant was playing a game of cat and mouse.

The Applicant referred to the Noise Management Plan and the conditions that had been agreed. During Covid-19 they had continued to operate with “bubbles” of six people, socially distanced. In those circumstances, it has been necessary to open windows and use the outdoors but this no longer applied and their inability to keep to the conditions then was the reason for the surrender of the original Premises Licence. Although the premises could only be exited or entered through the courtyard this would supervised by a member of staff. Under planning requirements the area had to be cleared by 10pm. Theatrical productions finished before 10pm.

The Sub-Committee noted that a certain number of smokers would be allowed outside, but limited them to five. They were satisfied that the Applicant understood the requirements for training and that volunteers would not be allowed to sell alcohol. The Applicant was aware that there had to be a Refusals Book and the importance of ensuring that alcohol was not sold to underage people. The Sub-Committee considered that it was appropriate under the licensing objectives and proportionate and in the public interest to grant the Premises Licence.

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.