Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that four local residents would be speaking, and the planning officer was also present to respond to questions. A statement from the applicant had been circulated separately.

The planning officer reported that the proposed use for the premises complied with Class E.  If the premises had use of the air conditioning unit this would need to be switched off at 6 or 7 pm depending on the relevant condition.

The residents stated that there had been no change since the previous application. This was a quiet residential street and adjoining streets, Upper Street and Essex Road, were perfect for licensed premises. The applicant had arranged a meeting with residents with only two days’ notice. The applicant promised not to open the rear door and the room was very hot. Test nights had been held but it was cold and wet and there had not been many customers. There had been a private party for staff and doors were open at the front and noise could be heard by residents. Smokers would also gather outside the premises. Another resident stated that the area was ill suited to an influx of drinkers who did not have any connection with the area and noise would increase with the drinking of alcohol. There would also be parking issues as there were not enough parking spaces. There were concerns about how the applicant would ventilate the premises without being able to open the windows and doors. There would be outdoor tables on a narrow pavement. The A boards had already been found to encroach on the pavements and it was considered that outdoor seating should not be agreed, and hours of operation limited to those limited by planning. It was stated that during the test events the air conditioning was turned on at 6.45 pm. One resident stated that you could hear the noise from all around the building due to the way it was built. People outside would not be possible to control, and customers could cause problems when they left the premises.

In response to questions, it was noted that noise from two public houses were away from the area and this particular locality was very quiet. The residents were concerned about noise escape if doors were open at the rear of the premises. Residents queried how customers at tables seated outside the premises could be served if doors were not allowed to be opened.  The planning officer advised that they had no evidence of a breach of planning use but stated that there was a live ongoing investigation. The licensing officer reported that there had been no complaints from the temporary events and the licensing team had also carried out regular monitoring of the premises.

The applicant’s representative stated that this was an application with modest hours, less than framework hours detailed in the licensing policy. The application detailed a comprehensive set of conditions which included CCTV, incident logs, training, keeping doors and windows closed and keeping the outside clean and tidy. This was a small venue and a representation and petition had also been made in support. The applicants’ CV had been detailed and she had been a personal licence holder for ten years. This was not a nightclub and residents’ objections were based on a fear of what might happen. There had been a series of temporary events and there had been no complaints. Doors would be closed at 9pm. It was a small premises and unlikely to overheat. The premises were outside the cumulative impact area and not near schools, with extensive conditions. Any risk relating to off sales would be low. The outside tables were placed on a private forecourt and the representative offered an additional condition that tables could be brought inside at 9pm. He stated that this was an experienced applicant, the application was supported by policy and objections made were not evidenced.

In response to questions, it was noted that there were two tables outside with three seats. Dining outside would be up until 9pm. Smokers would stand away from diners and there could be a condition with a limit placed on the number of smokers. The premises had a capacity of 30/40 and a limit of 4 or 5 smokers could be made. There would be no vertical drinking and alcohol would be ancillary. There was not a large industrial kitchen in the premises; doors could remain open until 9pm and in hot weather a small air conditioning unit could be purchased.  The premises was not connected to the air conditioning units detailed in the planning application and would not operate in breach. There would be staggered table bookings, but a dispersal policy could be agreed if it was helpful. Smokers would be moved to the front after 9pm and would not be allowed to take their drinks outside. New staff would undertake personal licence training. Off sales would be taken away in closed containers. Staff would ensure the outside area was cleaned. This was a restaurant and noise would be mitigated through conditions.

In summary, the residents stated the kitchen was not large enough to provide a substantial meal and that there would be no enforcement of conditions. They noted that there were to be live jazz events in December which would cause noise disturbance. Customers would be consuming alcohol and getting drunk. Smokers from other premises would also stand outside.

The applicants’ representative stated that the menu passed the substantial meal test. Live jazz had been applied for through TENs, would not be a regular occurrence and was not part of this application. Alcohol was drunk less quickly with food and was ancillary to this application. Numbers would be limited later in the evening which would aid dispersal. 

RESOLVED

1)      That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Ciro’s, Unit 6, 6-8 Northampton Street, N1 2HY, be granted to allow:-

a)      The sale of alcohol, to be consumed on and off the premises on Monday – Saturday from 12 noon – 10:30pm and Sunday from 12 noon – 9:30pm

b)      The permitted opening hours to be Monday – Saturday from 8 am – 11pm and Sunday from 08am to 10 pm

2)      That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on pages 61 to 64 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the following additional conditions:-

·       The outside tables and chairs will be taken inside the premises at 9pm.

·       There be no more than 5 smokers outside at any time.

·       That a dispersal policy be submitted to the licensing team within 28 days for their approval.

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.

Sixteen local resident objections had been received and one representation supporting the application.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

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

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from four local residents. The residents stated that the premises were in a residential street that, in their opinion, should not have licensed premises. There had been little resident engagement; although there had been a meeting it felt that this had been arranged by the licensing officer and not the applicant. During the meeting the applicant promised that she would never open the back door, but it was open during the meeting. The residents stated that the test nights could not count for anything because there was virtually no one there. There would be smokers outside and tables at the front which would cause noise. The tables were in a narrow area and encroached onto the pavement. There would be issues with parking and congestion.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s representative that the hours sought were modest and within the licensing policy 6. The application had a number of conditions covering matters such as CCTV, deliveries, keeping doors and windows closed, keeping the outside area clean and tidy, keeping an incident log, training, off sales in sealed containers and sales being ancillary to food. No responsible authorities had objected and weight should be placed on this. The applicant was vastly experienced and had run a number of TENs with no complaints. The premises were not going to be a nightclub. The application fell outside the licensing policy in respect of off sales due to the robust operating schedule and detailed conditions. The external dining was on a private forecourt and the applicant offered a condition that tables would be brought in at 9pm. In response to questions the applicant also offered a condition to limit the number of smokers and a policy in respect of dispersal.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the application with the hours sought and the conditions proposed, including the three additional conditions offered, would promote the licensing objectives. The premises was a small tapas restaurant which could not operate as a bar or club and the sale of alcohol had to be ancillary to the main operation of the premises as a bistro and coffee shop. The conditions offered should protect the amenity of local residents later in the evening. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 5 and 6.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.