The licensing officer reported that the applicant had requested an adjournment on the afternoon of the meeting but had not given a reason for this. The applicant was advised to request the adjournment in person at this late stage. The applicant was not present at the meeting.
The Sub-Committee considered that there were no grounds for an adjournment.
That the application be heard in the absence of the applicant.
The licensing officer reported that there had been an email exchange during the last 24 hours between the applicant, trading standards and the police. The applicant had removed off sales from the application and the trading standards concerns had therefore been addressed.
The police officer stated that they were unclear about the type of venue this was intended to be and had asked the applicant for clarification. Initially it was understood to be a restaurant/oyster bar but it was now shown to be a venue selling mainly hotdogs.
The noise officer stated that there were major problems with anti-social behaviour in Old Street. The council already paid for additional street cleaning at the weekend and there was a concern that there was no toilet indicated on the plans.
The Sub-Committee considered that this was an unsatisfactory application.
That the application for the new premises licence at Disco Dog, Old Street Station, EC1 be refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant and the legal representative were not in attendance at the meeting. An email had been sent to the licensing team in the afternoon requesting an adjournment. The applicant was advised to attend the meeting to make the request for an adjournment to the Sub-Committee.
The applicant did not provide any grounds for an adjournment and the Sub-Committee decided not to adjourn as it was not necessary to do so in the public interest.
The Sub-Committee received updated information from the licensing officer, the police and the environmental health team 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 noted that the applicant had indicated earlier in the day that off sales would be removed from the application. Discussions with trading standards had led to them withdrawing their objection. The police referred to discussions during the day and that there was confusion as to whether the venue was to be a restaurant or bar. The environmental health officer raised concerns about major anti-social behaviour at Old Street and the problem with public urination which had not been addressed by the applicant in the operating schedule. The officer stated that the plans show 60 covers in the restaurant but no provision of a toilet within the premises.
The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had failed to produce a detailed operating schedule in accordance with licensing policy 9 and there was insufficient information before the Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing policy 2. The premises fall under the Bunhill and Clerkenwell cumulative impact area. Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives. The applicant failed to rebut the presumption. The Sub-Committee refused the application as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the licensing objectives would be upheld.