Agenda item

The Licensing Officer updated the Sub-Committee. Representation 6 had been withdrawn. There had been some discrepancies with planning, but these seemed to have been resolved and the applicant believes the planning is correct for the use of the premises.

The interested party, a resident objector, spoke against the application and had claimed the applicant did not engage properly with the residents in the vicinity of the premises. The applicant had only sent a letter with a phone number, but the resident had not been able to get through on this line. The resident was concerned with the possibility of an open frontage and the noise this would create if it were to be opened, as the resident lived only 18.5 feet away from the premises. The resident asked the committee if they were to be minded to add a condition to the license in which this open frontage would be closed at a reasonable time in the evening. This would have helped with the noise issue, especially in the narrowest part of the passage.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the resident explained there had been little engagement. The resident also stated they would have no further issue with the granting of the license were the condition on the open frontage to be added.

The applicant explained that they had headed operation of 4 wine bars in total across London and the outer London area. They explained none of these premises had a single incident against the licensing objectives. They responded to concerns over engagement explaining they had contacted the licensing authority about the representations but due to GDPR they were only able to supply an email and telephone number, however they had met with other interested parties that had made representations to come to an agreement. The applicant explained there was not an open frontage, and this was a front door to the premises within the legal requirements to disability legislation. They further explained that many conditions on noise reduction had been proposed already and they were happy to comply to these. There would be table service only and no vertical drinking at the premises and signs would be put up asking patrons to reduce noise when leaving the premises.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the applicant explained they chose this area because of their love for the vibe and energy and the community feel of Camden and Islington. They wanted to bring something new and vibrant to the area. The Sub-Committee had asked about future plans of outdoor seating, the applicant responded that they had been in the process of applying for a pavement license. On concerns of noise disturbance, the applicant explained that all staff had ample training, and this was a ‘wine restaurant’ not a ‘wine bar’ so they had not expected to have a ‘rowdy’ clientele. Staff were also trained to ‘touch tables’ regularly so would be alert to any patrons that may have caused issues. The applicant explained they had a strict challenge 25 policy in which a register was kept of those that had attempted to be served underage.

The interested party summed up their case reiterating they did not want the open frontage of the building to be used and cause noise disturbance.

The Applicant summed up explaining it was not open frontage it was just a glass front. It was on the plans.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee has decided to grant the application for a new premises licence in respect of MUST WINE ISLINGTON, 2-4 CAMDEN PASSAGE, LONDON, N1 8ED

1)          To allow the sale by retail of alcohol, on & off supplies, Sundays from 11:00 until 21:15, Mondays & Tuesdays from 11:00 until 22:15, Wednesdays & Thursdays 11:00 until 22:30 and Fridays & Saturdays from 11:00 until 23:15

2)          The provision of late-night refreshment, Fridays & Saturdays from 23:00 until 23:45;

3)          The premises to be open to the public, Sundays from 11:00 until 21:45, Mondays & Tuesdays from 11:00 until 22:45, Wednesdays & Thursdays 11:00 until 23:00 and Fridays & Saturdays from 11:00 until 23:45

Conditions detailed on pages 85 to 88 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence. With the additional condition that doors and windows to the front of the premises shall be kept closed except for entry or egress.

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 Angel and Upper Street 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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 4.  The Council has adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Licensing policy 4 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 or subject to certain limitations, 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.

Six local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities as 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 a resident that she was very concerned about the open frontage to the premises. The premises is located at the narrowest part of the passage and an open frontage would be very disturbing to local residents. The resident requested a condition that any open frontage be closed at a reasonable time due to potential noise issues. The resident stated that she had tried to engage with the applicant but had not been able to.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that he runs 4 wine bars and had never had an incident with environmental health or the Police. He had been able to engage with some residents and had agreed conditions with the Police and Noise Team. The premises operated table service only with no vertical drinking and employees asked customers to disperse quietly. The applicant stated that he had applied for a pavement license, and this was currently being processed. The applicant stated that he had at no stage proposed an open frontage; there was a front door. In response to questions the applicant confirmed that there was a glass front then a door then more glass, he repeated that it was a door not an open frontage.

The Sub-Committee concluded that an extra condition was required to alleviate the resident’s concerns regarding the nature of the frontage and the noise nuisance this could create. As the applicant confirmed that the frontage consisted of an area of glass and a front door, the Sub-Committee concluded that a condition requiring the door to be kept closed other than for ingress and egress was a proportionate step to prevent any possible noise escape that might disturb residents and other users of the passage.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the granting of the license with the conditions agreed, and the extra condition should protect the amenity of local residents and still allow the applicant the opportunity to trade. The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions and extra condition would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 5 and 6 and that the proposed capacity of the premises fell within the possible exceptions to the cumulative impact policy.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, with the extensive conditions agreed, 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.