Agenda item

All parties to the application introduced themselves.

The licensing officer reported that additional papers from the applicant had been circulated to the interested parties and the Sub-Committee members.

Residents spoke in objection to the application. One resident stated that there had been a delay in consultation and residents had not been given time to respond to additional papers.  There had been a previous application which was refused and subsequently appealed.  There was a concern that this was a second application in the absence of an appeal decision. He considered that there was clear advice that this application did not fall within Class E and was therefore unlikely to comply with planning policy. This operation would stray well beyond the hours permitted in terms of the planning consent. A second resident stated that they had enjoyed the quiet amenity of the neighbourhood with no disruption. Residents had less than five working days to make a response to the application and planning concerns had not been addressed.  The applicants had stated that they were interested in the local community and neighbourhood but had not spoken to residents about the application. Residents had concerns regarding condition 2 that implied that the premises would be open to anyone booking a private event in advance. The resident also raised concerns that the terminal hour of 10.30pm would go well beyond the planning condition that was set for 7pm.

Three residents spoke in support of the application. One resident stated that the applicant had been involved with many community projects and this was a meticulously planned new business. It was considered that this would attract Islington residents to the business. One resident stated that, with this application he would feel less isolated, and he would be more connected to people in his local neighbourhood. He would be able to spend more time in the area, meet his local community and also use the gym in the premises. He had been to one of the events that had been held and it had been well run. The third resident stated that this would give people the chance to meet new people in the area and also offered a chance for investment in the area.

In response to questions, one resident stated that he had attended a resident meeting that had been held at very short notice. Only some residents had received invitations and he considered that the applicant had not communicated with the community. One resident considered that the lack of planning consent was a material consideration to the application. In response, the legal advisor to the Sub-Committee stated that a lack of planning consent was not a reason to refuse the application. Any enforcement, if necessary, would be taken by the Planning Department and a licensing hearing was held to ensure that the application promoted the licensing objectives. Residents in support considered that this would be a place to bring people together and for local people, who had not been born in the area, to be part of the community.

The applicants’ representative stated that this application promoted the licensing objectives. The applicants stated that with the increase in working from home it was hoped that this space would be used to build a sense of community and to share vibrant workspace for hundreds of residents. Loom was built on the core values of localism using local independent businesses. Events such as cooking workshops would be offered. One applicant stated he had lived in Islington for nine years and it had taken some time to feel that he belonged to an area. He was excited to offer this space to residents. He detailed how the fitness classes would operate. The applicants’ representative stated that the application had been amended in the spirit of collaboration. The application for recorded music had been deleted and the hours for the sale of alcohol reduced to 10.30pm for alcohol and to 10pm for films. He stated that the application could be further reduced to 10pm Sunday to Thursday for the sale of alcohol. He stated that this was not a bar. The applicant would make available his contact details and wanted to be a contributing part of the community. They had engaged extensively with local residents and the responsible authorities and had held meetings and site visits. The conditions proposed were appropriate and proportionate. There would be a high standard of management and no objections from the responsible authorities. All concerns had been addressed with the numerous conditions. This was not a bar or night club and condition 1 would require authorised licensable activities to be ancillary to the use as a neighbourhood space.

In response to questions, it was noted that this was a co-working space which would allow residents to avoid the stress of the commute and the social isolation of working from home. It provided wellness classes, strength training and events such as cooking workshops. Prices would start from £145 a month depending on the package. Other similar types of business were on an average of £400. Events held were expected to be a few a week and were for subscribers and their guests up to a limit of four. Subscribers would be able to book in advance and the general public were not able to book. Events with alcohol would not allow underage guests and they would operate Challenge 25. They had previous experience of running events. There would not be ID scanners at the premises but underage would not be allowed after 9pm and they would hold records of members at the premises.  They had promoted low alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks in January. There would be no draught beer, but beer and wine would be available and they would hold cocktail making demonstrations. There was a dispersal policy included in the papers, all events would be risk assessed and the aim would be to direct patrons to Essex Road and away from residential properties. Most days members would be leaving gradually. If Ubers were called members would be asked to wait inside. The applicants’ legal representative stated that there could be a condition should quiet marshals be required. The community was diverse. There was a strong volunteering programme and it was the aim for local staff to be recruited. They would also be looking to partner with local businesses. Resident meetings could be held within the space. The applicants could only reach out to those resident whose details they knew and residents would need to submit contact details if they wished.

In summary, the residents in objection stated that the application should be refused due to the uncertainties and results of the appeal waited. It was also considered that this was the wrong location for this type of premises on a quiet residential street and condition 2 was worded so that a private party could be permitted.

The applicants’ representative stated that they had worked hard to engage and had gone beyond the consultation that was required.  This was borne out by the number of residents in support of the application. The applicants wished to foster a sense of community and had put together a very good application. He invited the Sub-Committee to grant the application.

RESOLVED

1)      That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Loom Club, Units 20, 22 and 23, 6-8 Northampton Street, N1 2HY be granted to allow:-

a)    The sale of alcohol (on sales only) on Sunday to Thursday from 12.30pm to 10.00 pm and on Friday and Saturday from 12.30pm to 10.30pm

b)    Regulated entertainment for films on Sunday to Saturday 11am to 10.00pm

c)     The proposed opening hours to be Sunday to Saturday from 6am to 11pm

2)  That conditions detailed on pages 73 to 78 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following amendments:-

            Condition 2c to read - Guests attending a private, pre-booked members event.

Condition 15 – first sentence to read. The premises licence holder will risk assess the need to engage SIA Licensed Door Supervisors and quiet marshals.

Condition 38 to read – The premises licence holder shall devise, implement and maintain a Dispersal Policy and a risk assessment for the premises. A copy of both (which may be electronic) shall be kept at the premises and made available for both by authorised Responsible Authority Officers on request.

Condition 6 – second sentence to read. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity and placed on the website.

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.

Eleven local residents’ objections and ten representations in support of the application had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee heard submissions that residents opposing the application were concerned about the increase of people potentially leaving the premises. In their view the premises did not possess the required planning permission and that the application should be refused on that ground.

The Sub-Committee also heard submissions that supported the application and the new business about to open. Their view was that it would provide an opportunity for local residents to engage with each other and have a sense of belonging.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that there were no representations from any of the Responsible Authorities.

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