Agenda item

The licensing officer advised that the applicant had written to the residents who had submitted representations; one had withdrawn, one resident was happy to meet with the applicant but had not withdrawn their representation and a third had been contacted three times but had not responded.

The applicant’s representative stated that this was a new alcohol licence. This was to be a small restaurant with 25 to 30 covers and was not a bar and was not alcohol led.

In response to questions, it was stated that this was a Japanese restaurant and all customers eating would be seated. CCTV was installed to help prevent nuisance. Alcohol was sold with food. Japanese alcohol would be mainly sold. Four patrons were allowed to stand while waiting for a table and other customers would be denied as the premises did not have any other space. The owner had passed the licensing course. They would indicate to patrons the directions away from the vicinity for quiet dispersal.

In summary, they would comply with conditions and hoped to bring Japanese food to the community.

RESOLVED

1)    That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Katsumama, Unit 4 Rosebery Court, 36a Rosebery Avenue EC1R 5HP, be granted to allow the sale of alcohol, for consumption on the premises from 12:00 noon until 11pm Monday to Sunday.

2)    The premises to be open to the public from 12 noon until 11pm Monday to Sunday.

1)      That conditions detailed on pages 94 to 97 of the agenda be applied to the licence.

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 fall within the Clerkenwell 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.

Three local resident objections had been received none of whom attended and one of which had been withdrawn.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities but 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 that the police conditions allowed four people to stand in the restaurant while waiting for a table and to consume alcohol at that point. However, the Sub-Committee accepted that the restaurant was extremely small with 25 covers and no more than four people could be accommodated standing. The premises would operate as a sushi restaurant with specialist Japanese beers and alcohol but was essentially food led. The manager had recently completed a personal licence qualification.

Licensing policy 3, paragraph 21, refers to the significant contribution to the economic prosperity of the borough from businesses in Clerkenwell. Paragraph 23 states the licensing authority has to balance the needs of local business with those of local residents. 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions would promote and was appropriate to the licensing objectives and was proportionate. The applicant had rebutted the presumption against granting a new premises licence in a cumulative impact area and the Sub-Committee was satisfied that there would be no negative cumulative impact on any of the licensing objectives.