Agenda item

The Licensing Officer reported one update to the Sub Committee that since the publication of the report, the Planning Officer had confirmed that the premises did have the correct planning permission.

In their verbal representation to the Sub Committee, the first interested party raised concerns regarding the length of the operating hours, specifically the closing times on Friday and Saturday nights; that the premises was within a cumulative impact area; and that the restaurant had very high ceilings and that it currently hd ineffective sound proofing, which the interested party said would result in noise reverberating and affect residents above. The interested party also stated that the premises had always closed at 11pm because of noise issues and cited the closing times of other restaurants in the vicinity to support their representation.

In their verbal representation to the Sub Committee, the second interested party raised concerns regarding noise, and stated that there had been noise issues with previous occupants of the premises, despite each previous tenant giving similar assurances. The interested party stated that the noise came from within property, outdoor seating, and extractor fans, but that their main objection was the proposed later opening hours.

In their verbal representation to the Sub Committee, the third interested party raised concerns regarding noise late at night, the later licensable hours of operation and that the granting of the application would set a precedent for other establishments in the area.

The Sub Committee informed the interested parties that conditions 9 and 10 address the issue of noise from the premises and that in the event of either condition being breached, the licensee would have to take action.

In their verbal representation to the Sub Committee, the legal representative of the applicant outlined that they were grateful for the Sub Committee reading the material in advance, that their client had experience in operating restaurants, and was committed to the local community and the building, which had been occupied by squatters. The Legal Representative went on to state that they hadn’t received responses to their letters to the interested parties, but that the door remained open to feedback, and that they were grateful at the indication that the objections were not to the application in principle, but the hours of operation. The Legal Representative continued, stating that the premises’ use matched licensing policy and promoted the licensing objectives, and the desire for additional customers was to make the business viable. It was also stated to the Sub Committee that the purpose of requesting after hours was about ensuring controlled departures from second seatings, which they hoped would be less likely to disturb residents; and that there was an existing licensing footprint at the site for late night hours of operation.

In their verbal representation to the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that they had a good relationship with all neighbours. The applicant went on to state that squatters had caused damage and nuisance to the property which had to be addressed, and that they offer staggered sittings to their customers so that they don’t feel rushed and also to aid easier dispersal from the premises.

In summing up, the interested parties highlighted that their cases were straightforward and stemmed from their beliefs that the proposed opening hours were unreasonable. The interested parties went on to state that they expected a degree of noise disturbance from the operation of a restaurant, but that they wanted the Council to protect them from excessive noise and disturbance.

In summing up, the legal representative stated that they were grateful to the residents for not objecting in principle, that it was a reasonable, policy-compliant application that was less intrusive than previous licences historically granted at the premises, and that the granting of the expanding operating hours were critical for the business to survive.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Perilla Dining, 84-86 Roseberry Avenue, EC1R 4QY, be granted to allow:-

1)          To allow the On and Off Sales of Alcohol from 10:00 until 23:00 Sunday to Thursday and from 10:00 until 00:00 Friday and Saturday

2)          To allow Late Night Refreshment from 23:00 until 00:00 Friday and Saturday

3)          To allow Alcohol Sales and Late-Night Refreshment until 00:00 on Sunday’s preceding Bank Holiday’s.

4)          To allow Alcohol Sales and Late-Night Refreshment from the end of permitted hours on New Years Eve until the start of permitted hours on New Years Day.

5)          To allow Opening Hours of the premises to be from 09:00 until 23:30 Sunday to Thursday and from 09:00 until 00:30 Friday and Saturday.

Conditions detailed on pages 113 to 115 of the agenda shall 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 application in relation to on and off sales of alcohol was from 10am to 11pm Sundays to Thursdays and from 10am to midnight Fridays and Saturdays.

In relation to late night refreshment the hours sought in the application were from 11pm to midnight Fridays and Saturdays.

The licensable activities also applied for were for on and off sales of alcohol and late-night refreshment on Sundays preceding Bank Holidays until midnight and alcohol sales and late-night refreshment from end of permitted hours until start of permitted hours (New Years Eve to New Years Day)

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.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours applied for were within the framework hours (Licensing Policy 6).

The Sub-Committee also noted that the nature of the business fell within the exception criteria of the Clerkenwell Cumulative Impact area.

The Sub-Committee fully the concerns raised by the residents in the written and oral submissions. The Sub-Committee further noted the fact that there were no representations from the Responsible Authorities and that the Noise Team and Police had agreed conditions with the applicant.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions 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, 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.