Agenda item

The Licensing Officer updated the Sub-Committee. There had been an amendment to a condition which had been sent in a bundle by the applicant.

The interested parties including 3 local residents and a member of the Better Archway Forum gave objection to the license. They explained this was a residential area occupied by young families and the elderly. The premises was an office block and the sale and consumption of alcohol was not necessary. The roof terrace on the building overlooks gardens and adjoins the terraced housing surrounding the office block and was therefore invasive and created noise disturbance. Their website had been promoting parties with DJs and alcohol, not just for workers, this would create noise and anti-social behaviour, particularly when people disperse from the premises. There had already been issues with litter and drug misuse in the area, they had not wanted this to get worse. There had also been safety concerns for young families with broken glass on the street and late night parties on Fridays and Saturdays, which they felt were unneeded in a co-working space. The surrounding area already had premises which sold alcohol and they had not wanted the problem of anti-social behaviour to worsen in a cumulative impact area. The resident objectors had likened the noise to ‘like having a nightclub on your doorstep’.

The Sub-Committee asked the Licensing Officer if there had been any formal complaints. The officer said they could not see any objections to previous Temporary Event Notices that had been used in the premises.

The Applicant explained the roof terrace was not included in the license application and they had added a condition to say there could be no private third-party events. The applicant’s representative explained the hours sought were within the framework hours and there would be no Off Sales. They had agreed conditions with the police prior to the hearing, but if there were any repetitive concerns they would work with the police, and these would be dealt with. The applicant emphasised this was still a co-working space and not an alcohol-led business. There had been a dispersal policy submitted explaining how they would mitigate noise concerns and concerns over the dispersal of people leaving the venue. The previous private events had been a way to generate income lost during the Covid-19 pandemic, but the applicant realised that this wasn’t a feasible way to make revenue and did not want to create a bad relationship with residents so had stopped these events. While the co-working space operated 24 hours, there would be no alcohol beyond the licensed hours, and this would be locked away. Each member of the facility also had to sign a contract and pay a security deposit, if they were found in breach of this the deposit would be taken and the contract voided. The applicant and their representative emphasised alcohol would only be ancillary to work related events, such as, conferences and training days.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the applicant explained they needed to update the website to clarify the events hosted and make clearer there would be no third-party events. The roof terrace would be used for outside working and as a lunch or meeting space, but no alcohol would be served out on the roof terrace. Over concerns of noise reduction, the applicant explained that they had sound reducing double glazing and sound absorbing curtains and furniture.

The Sub-Committee proposed conditions involving a quarterly meeting with residents in all surrounding vicinity, to better engage with them. As well as a condition so that there could be no bring your own alcohol events and any mention of this in previous conditions be removed.

In summary the interested parties were concerned of the noise and nuisance created by allowing the sale of alcohol in an office space.

The applicant summarised explaining alcohol would only be ancillary to work events and if any members were to break these conditions their contract would be voided.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee has decided to grant the application for a new premises licence in respect of BESPOKE SPACES LONDON LTD, 14 WINDERMERE ROAD, LONDON N19 5SG

1)          To allow the sale of alcohol, on supplies only, Mondays to Sundays, from 11:00 to 22:00

2)          The Premises opening hours, Mondays to Sundays, from 00:00 to 00:00

Conditions detailed in the applicant’s bundle shall be applied to the licence.

And the additional condition presented by the applicant be applied that “The sale of alcohol shall only be made to members of Bespoke Spaces and their staff or bona fide guests or to persons attending a work-related event including conferences, training, and social events. No private third-party events shall be booked at or permitted to take place at Bespoke Spaces”

Reference to Bring Your Own alcohol events will be removed in conditions 14 and 24 in the applicant’s bundle.

And additional conditions be applied to the license that:

-        the applicant meets with residents quarterly.

-        there shall be no sale of beer, lager, or cider with an ABV content of 5.5% or above for save craft and premium beers.

-        there will be no Bring Your Own alcohol events.

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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policies 2 & 3.  The premises falls within the Archway 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.

5 local resident objections had been received and 1 objection from the Better Archway Forum. A local ward councillor withdrew their objection. Conditions had been agreed with the Police and Noise Team.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from residents that the premises were located in a dead-end road containing 40 terraced houses. The area is heavily residential with children and elderly and vulnerable residents. Residents were greatly concerned about the use of a flat roof terrace and stated that since the office block had been in use there was a significant problem with noise and other disruption. The premises had been a real blight on the area even without an alcohol license. The premises had been open to the public not just members and there had been noise, disruption to parking, and bottles and glasses everywhere. It had been like having a ‘night club on the doorstep’.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicants that the roof terrace was not part of the application and a condition had been offered that no private third-party events were to be booked. The premises had previously operated under some Temporary Event Notices (TENs) but when the extent of the noise nuisance was realised it was decided that these sorts of events would not be held again. A dispersal policy had been submitted, the premises would not be open to members of the public and the sale of alcohol would only be ancillary to the office use of the premises. The applicants apologised for the previous noise caused. The applicants confirmed that they operate with strict conditions on members and any members causing disturbance would be in breach of their contract and would be ‘kicked out’. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had offered further conditions in respect of bring your own alcohol events and regular engagement with residents.

The Sub-Committee concluded that due to the residential nature of the area it would be proportionate and appropriate to reduce the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol from 23:00 to 22:00. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of residents in relation to the policing of the dispersal policy and concluded that the reduced hours would ensure that premises did not add to the cumulative impact in the area. The reduction in hours would protect the amenity of residents, whilst still giving the applicant the opportunity to run their business.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions, the extra conditions, and the reduced hours would promote the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, with the extensive conditions agreed and the reduction in hours, meant that the premises 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.