Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the police had agreed conditions with the applicant but this was subject to an amendment to the hours proposed. The noise team had also agreed conditions.

The licensing authority stated that the applicant had not put forward any mitigation in their application. The application was sparse and they had not completed section 18 which should form the basis of licence conditions. They had not stated why they would need to operate until 3am and the licensing authority asked that, should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant, the hours should be framework hours. The police stated that they had offered the conditions but the hours proposed were well outside framework hours and no mitigation had been provided. The applicant had agreed the conditions once they had been offered to them. During engagement with the applicant, the core hours had been explained and he had been asked if he wished to amend the application.

In response to questions, the licensing authority stated that the application was not incomplete but the applicant had not set out how they intended to operate. The responsible authorities did not know if they would operate to the highest standards of management.  The police stated that if the applicant had reduced the hours to core hours they would not have objected to the application.

The applicant stated that he wanted the increased hours as they had made a loss over the past year. This was a takeaway business and they would not be selling alcohol. Customers would not make noise as they would order over the phone. There would be no noise disturbance to residents.

In response to questions it was noted that most delivery riders used electric bikes. They were unable to park directly in front of the shop due to the position of the traffic lights. He had not completed the application in full for fear of doing it incorrectly.  He was aware that the objections had been mainly about noise and agreed to a condition to ensure that all deliveries would be made by non-motorised vehicles.

The licensing authority was concerned that the applicant did not show a great understanding of the licensing policy or objectives and if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application it should be within core hours. The police agreed with this summary.

The applicant stated that if the licence be granted until 2am, this would be a huge help for the business.  They would ensure they mitigated any noise and not disturb the residents.

RESOLVED

1)    That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Mr Chans, 21 Clerkenwell Road, EC1M 5RD, be granted to allow:-

a)    The sale of late night refreshment Sundays to Thursdays from 11pm until midnight and Friday and Saturdays from 11pm to 1am.

b)    The premises to be open to the public Sunday to Thursday from 11.30 am until midnight and Friday and Saturday from 11.30am to 1am.

2)    That conditions detailed on pages 39 to 40 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following addition condition to replace condition 15 in the report. 

·       That no internal combustion engine vehicles be used for deliveries from the premises and the licensee shall ensure that drivers do not park or loiter in the vicinity of residential premises.

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 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 operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

Conditions had been agreed by the noise team. The Sub-Committee noted that there had been one resident objection.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were not within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committeeheard evidence from the Licensing Authority that the applicant had put forward little information to show that the premises would not have a negative impact on the area. The application itself was sparse and Section 18, which is the operating schedule, had been left blank. The licensing authority suggested that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant a licence it should only be for framework hours.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that although agreement had been reached with regard to conditions, this was only for framework hours. Although the applicant had engaged with police, the hours sought were so far outside the framework hours, and there was so little in the application, that even with the agreed conditions it seemed best to put the matter before the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that the business was just a takeaway business and customers would not be staying at the premises making noise. Most business would be by delivery and most delivery drivers rode non-motorised vehicles. Any motorbikes would be unable to park directly outside the business as the premises were next to traffic lights. The applicant confirmed that he would be happy with a condition that no internal combustion engines would be used for deliveries.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that a licence granted to the hours sought would not add to the cumulative impact in the area. However, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that a licence within framework hours with the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities and one further condition relating to delivery drivers would promote the licensing objectives and 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.