Agenda item

The Chair of the Sub-Committee opened by asking the licensing officer for any additional information that had become available since the publication of the agenda.

In response, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that there had been a few representations from residents that were unable to attend this hearing and sent apologies. One of the representations unable to attend requested that the applicant did not play music after 10.30pm because they worked from home. Another representation unable to attend had raised doubts about the intentions of applicant and feared that in the later hours it would be run as a bar, thus causing noise, nuisance and a congregation of intoxicated persons that could obstruct access. That representation also sought to highlight a violent altercation that took place in the vicinity as part of their objection and stated that their flatmate had felt intimidated by the applicant. That representation also highlighted that they believed the applicant had failed to operate within the designated hours and was apprehensive about attending in-person. Conditions had been agreed with the Licensing Authority and Police who both haven’t made a representation. No responsible authorities had made a representation. The Licensing Officer acknowledged that there had been a crime in the vicinity, which had a CAD number, and that the applicant stated this was not connected to the premises. The Planning representation was centred on a technicality regarding the flues, but this had been withdrawn. The Licensing Officer stated that the hours required for the licence to be 12midday to 10pm on Saturdays and 12midday to 10.30pm on all other days. The premises would close at 11pm each day. The Licensing Officer also acknowledged that there had previously been noise complaints among other issues, but a lot of this was received during or relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Noise team were happy with the hours and conditions proposed.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to outline their objection, the only interested party in attendance, a resident who lived in the flat above the premises since September 2021, told members that an incident had occurred at this time last year, in which significant noise emanated upstairs from the premises. The resident stated that there were three builders, conducting works in the late hours of the night and several noise complaints had been made, ranging in the double digits. The resident stated that the building works happened exclusively and represented a statutory nuisance. The resident stated that the noise had a negative impact on their wellbeing and ability to work from home. The resident also outlined instances of private parties in the premises that occurred throughout the night, but acknowledged that the applicant had apologised, albeit taking half an hour to clear the premises. The resident also highlighted that there was no insulation within the premises and highlighted an additional incident in March 2023. The resident alleged that during that incident a lot of late-night building works had taken place and that when they challenged the applicant, it resulted in a verbal altercation with a threat of violence. The resident told members that the nature of communication with applicants was not a miscommunication, and that the nature of communication had been aggressive. The resident stated that they opposed the granting of the licence.

The Licensing Officer clarified that the most recent complaint about the premises was in relation to building works.

The applicants stated that this was their fifth application and that they had been refused many times previously. The applicants sought to address the planning issues first, stressing that they had applied for a change of use on the premises, when many establishments circumvented this. The applicants stated that they did take into consideration noise issues, which was why they had reduced the area and affirmed that the main area was sound insulated.

The applicants stated that all tenants had their contact details, and that the interested party in attendance was the most recent occupant. The applicant corroborated the incident described by the resident and stated that at the time they had provided the resident with assurances that the noise downstairs would be dealt with. The applicant refuted the allegation of aggressiveness, stating that they had apologised for disturbances. The applicant stated that they had accepted all conditions and would communicate with all parties. The applicant stated the premises would become a restaurant.

The Sub-Committee pressed the applicants on how well they understood the licensing objectives, who the designated premises supervisor would be and how many trained officers. The applicant responded that this responsibility would fall to him and one other designated member of staff. The applicant also stated that they were putting signs up around the premises requesting patrons respect neighbours.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to clarify the sound insulation of the premises, the applicants stated that the extension had no insulation. The application was for the main building which passed the test and was insulated. The applicant stated that the noise was building works.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee noted that they would have liked to have seen the applicant build a relationship with neighbours and hoped this could happen going forward

The applicant stated that this was not their first business, and that they were well-versed in ID verification. The applicant stated that they would be on the premises and was a well-known figure in the community.

In summing up, the resident stated that the relationship between the residents and the applicant had broken down and that the applicant had not made the effort to make amends. The resident stated that other residents were worried about the guests and applicants and that on the day of this hearing there had been building works in the premises. The resident reiterated that noise pollution from the premises emanates throughout the property.

In summing up, the applicant apologised for any perceived aggressiveness or miscommunication, and stressed their commitment to follow the conditions imposed. The applicant also invited all residents to communicate and engage with them

RESOLVED

1)     That the Sub-Committee has decided to adjourn the application for a new premises licence in respect of D&D Restaurant & Lounge, 347 Holloway Road, Islington, London, N7 0RN, under Regulation 12 (1) (a) of The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, so that they can produce evidence of effective sound proofing. This will be adjourned to the meeting of 8^th June 2023.