Agenda item

The licensing officer advised that the fire risk assessment was available at the meeting for consideration.

The Licensing Authority stated that there been no further communication with the applicant.  She had visited the premises and seen the corrugated plastic structure with a glass roof.  Many complaints had been made by residents.  She considered that it would be difficult for the area to be sound proofed, and it was currently like an echo chamber. She recommended that the rear part of the premises should not be used after 8pm and any music should be at conversation level. She raised concerns about the fire exit doors and that these did not provide enough protection from the rest of the building. There was cooking taking place in the area and there were offices in the rest of the building.  She considered that the premises were not suitable for a fully operational bar with music.

In response to questions by members, it was noted that the fire risk assessment had been commissioned by the landlord and had been carried out in November 2022. The fire risk assessment had identified some quite significant issues with the premises.

Three residents spoke in objection to the application.  They stated that the premises was in the middle of residential premises.  There were student parties and a members’ club that operated in close proximity but with no complaint. There was constant noise escape with this premises. Issues had been known about for years. Noise disturbance could occur from 1 pm to 10pm. The building amplified noise rather than absorbing it. Following advice by an Acoustic Consultant, the noise level had been measured from Thursday to Sunday and the decibel level was in the region of 60 to 70. A vacuum cleaner had a decibel level of 70. A condition on the licence in 2015 asked for a noise survey. The structure was only four metres away from residential premises and neighbours were no longer able to use their gardens.  There was also constant light pollution.

In response to questions, the residents stated that the owner knew that this structure was unsuitable.  It had been well documented for years, since 2016/2107.  Residents had always had to submit noise complaints, but it had never been resolved with the premises. The structure lent itself to a pop-up temporary business and was unsuitable. Any conversation could be heard. The structure needed to be rebuilt and sound proofed and as tenants they could not do this themselves. In response to a question about regularising the situation, residents considered that any licence would not be workable as a noise condition would be broken each day. Problems could result from legitimising the premises because this concerned not only the current operators but anyone who may take over the premises in the future.

The licensing officer informed that the premises had been used as a café from 2015. The building, which had been erected in a loading bay, was unsuitable. A condition on the licence in 2015 had stated that the noise or vibration would not emanate from the yard area after 7pm.

The Sub-Committee considered that if there was any breach regarding planning consent, this should be dealt with by the planning team. The Chair suggested that, should the licence were granted it would include a proposed condition that the rear area should not be used after 8pm. The applicant stated that the business would not be viable if this condition was imposed.

The applicant stated that he operated Thursdays to Sundays and closed early on the Sunday. They normally stopped serving by 9.30 – 10pm and were not intending to add more days. He understood that there was a lack of a good structure. This was not a bar or a club and served alcohol with food. Signs were erected asking customers to keep the volume down and to respect the neighbours. They would like a better venue and they were looking for another premises but it fell through. Not using the rear at 8pm would kill the business. Changes to the structure would cost money but they would be investing money for a reason. They could make improvements to keep the decibel level below 70. They were currently operating bring your own alcohol and hoped that they could find a compromise.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that they would buy panels similar to those used along railways to keep out noise. The applicant and his partner would be the only ones selling alcohol.

When questioned about how much of the Fire Risk Assessment Action Plan had been completed, the applicant explained that the landlord had obtained the Fire Risk Assessment and had sent it to them. The applicant did not know much about it as it was the Landlord’s responsibility, but he knew that a fire detector was to be moved to the kitchen next week. He considered that installing the panels would improve the noise disturbance as the sound would rise above the panels. Work on the roof would be more difficult. Somebody would be visiting next week to check the works that were being carried out. They hadn’t really obtained quotes, but they expected the panels to be about £200 each. If the full work was £10 000 they would not do it but they didn’t know how much it would cost at this stage. He considered that if the premises was more attractive, they would only have the same number of customers but would eventually move to another venue.

In summary, the Licensing Authority stated that there was not enough detail in the initial application for the licence. Sound insulation would need to be substantial and the use of the premises should be at the front. It was the risk assessment commissioned by the landlord and his responsibility. She considered that these were not suitable premises for an operational café and bar.

The residents stated that there were already breaches of the licence conditions. They were fed up with constantly complaining and asked that a licence be heavily conditioned or rejected.

The applicant stated that they operated Thursday to Saturday and were on a main road. He stated that it was difficult to find total peace in London. If they were stopped it would change the workers and customers lives. If the use of the rear finished at 8pm it would not be possible to survive. He asked that the Sub-Committee make it a more controllable business rather than they operate bring your own. They would make changes from the structure using their own money.

RESOLVED

The Sub-Committee has decided to refuse the application for a new premises licence in respect of Plant Club Cafe, 49 Green Lanes, N16 9BU

REASONS FOR DECISION

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.

Eleven local resident objections had been received.  There had been representations made by the Licensing Authority and some conditions had been agreed with the Noise team and the Police. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the main problem with the premises was, that the rear area, which was bordered by a garden fence and backing onto residents’ gardens, was unsuitable acoustically. The Licensing Authority described the structure at the rear of the premises as a corrugated plastic structure with glass roofing. Both the Licensing Authority and residents agreed that it was an echo chamber.  Even normal conversation was quite audible to residents. The kitchen was situated in that structure.

The applicant had proposed a condition as follows: “The sale of alcohol at the premises under this licence shall not be permitted until work has been completed and approved by the Council’s pollution team to prevent the use of the premises as a restaurant being a nuisance to nearby residential properties.”  However, the applicant was vague about what steps had been taken to soundproof the premises although he said that it would cost £200 for each fence panel. He had no clear idea how much the entire work would cost. At the hearing, a fire risk assessment was tabled but the applicant said it had been produced by the landlord and he didn’t know much about it.

The Licensing Authority had suggested a condition that the rear of the premises should not be used after 8pm.  When questioned, the applicant was clear that he could not accept this condition because it would not be viable for the business.

The Sub-Committee weighed up the benefits of granting a premises licence with conditions and the current situation where the restaurant was operating on a bring your own alcohol for customers. However, it was also apparent that granting a premises licence would not be appropriate or proportionate to the licensing objectives, particularly preventing public nuisance. Under licensing policy 22, the Licensing Authority is committed to preventing public nuisance by protecting the amenity of resident in the vicinity of licensed premises. Licensing policy 8 requires the applicant to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management. The applicant could not demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of best practice.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the application for a premises licence should be refused.