Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the hours had been amended and were now detailed in paragraph 1.2 of the report.  Additional papers had been circulated from a local resident which included a number of conditions. The hours, as amended, were in line with the planning consent hours for the use of the market.

Two local residents spoke in objection to the application. One resident stated that this would create significant noise nuisance in a space that was not suitable. Flats with their bedrooms and sitting rooms overlooked the space. Flats were not built to standards that would withstand amplified music and an impact assessment from the applicant had not been provided. Events held before Christmas were loud and noise levels had not been lowered. Residents had to live with quite unsuitable levels of noise. Restaurants could already serve alcohol outside their premises in that space. The market was currently running on Saturdays only and they did not consider that the applicant required a blanket licence. Residents asked that the licence be a specific licence and linked to the farmers market in order that the licence could not be used if the market was not held.  A second resident stated that the developers wanted to develop the area into a mini-Kings Cross but this was not the correct location as there was only one road. The restaurants were able to sell alcohol on their tables outside so there was no need for further alcohol to be sold. There was no sound proofing in the buildings. The developer needed to work with residents.

In response to questions, the residents stated that there had been no engagement regarding this application. Residents had sought independent acoustic advice and had asked the applicant to reduce noise levels but had received no response. The flats had been built with a low-grade window system. Residents had raised concerns about noise and had been informed that this was a one-off event. However, they had also been informed that the security team were told to ignore their concerns and this did not give them faith in the developer. They would not be happy to have to report noise and complain about issues. This was not the same type of location as granary square and flats and houses nearby did not have acoustic glazing.

The applicant’s representative stated that modest hours had been applied for and had been amended to reflect the planning consent. There had been a temporary event, which was a carol service, which was louder than they would have liked. This ran from 5.45pm to 7.30pm. Films and regulated entertainment had been withdrawn from the application. The application would be subject to conditions and could be reviewed which could impact the deregulation of licensable activities. The hours requested were modest, the conditions extensive and the application had been revised following the comments made.

In response to questions, it was noted that the planning consent allowed markets on Fridays to Sundays. Hours and restrictions, as agreed through the planning process, were now sought. A couple of meetings had been held with local residents and there was a further one to be held in February/March. There had been no instruction to the security team to ignore local resident complaints. There were 3 or 4 security officers for 24 hours per day. If there was a larger event, additional security would be required. Since the event at Christmas there was a more direct escalation process for a simpler and quicker response for resident complaints. The applicant stated that they could also accompany residents to their properties to listen to noise disturbance. The applicant noted that the Council encouraged non-combustible vehicles to help with noise disturbance. The police had not made any comments regarding the strength of alcohol sold but it was likely that stalls would be selling artisan individual products rather than mass produced alcohol. There might be tables near stalls where craft beer could be drunk but these would not be bars. Alcohol sold would need to be part of a market.

In summary, the local resident stated that the application did not specifically link alcohol to the market and the Sub-Committee was urged to consider this. The cumulative impact was relevant as the proximity was close to homes. The noise service could monitor noise in flats. Without strict conditions there would be many complaints. The applicant needed to engage with residents.

The applicant accepted there had been a couple of noisy events. The application had been amended. The sale of alcohol was ancillary to the use of the market. Conditions offered protection from noise. The applicant would be concerned about limiting the abv% of alcohol as this may restrict the sale of craft alcohol, and other alcohol that stall holders may wish to sell. The sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the use of the market.

RESOLVED

1)      That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of the external and covered shopping areas, Esther Anne Place and 116 Upper Street, N1 1AP, be granted to allow the sale by retail of alcohol, on and off supplies, Fridays from 12 noon until 7pm, Saturdays from 10am until 5pm and Sundays and Bank Holidays from 11am until 5pm.:-

2)      That conditions outlined pages 195 to 198 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the additional conditions:-

·       The sale of alcohol is restricted to when there is a market held on the premises with market stalls.

·       Condition 34 to read. In the event of a noise/nuisance complaint substantiated by an authorised officer, the premises licence holder shall take prompt appropriate measures in order to prevent any recurrence.

·       The premises licence holder shall hold quarterly residents’ meetings.

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 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.

Twenty-nine local resident objections had been received and two from local resident associations.  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.

Two residents made oral submissions to the Licensing Sub-Committee. Their concerns were noise emanating from the venue and that the residential premises surrounding the square were not built to withstand noise from the music that the licensee would be permitted to play while selling alcohol on the premises.

The concern was that the venue would be used for events in addition to farmers markets. Farmers markets are currently held at the premises on Saturdays, but the applicants’ representative informed the Licensing Sub-Committee that additional farmers markets may be held on the other days that apply to this licence.

The concern of the residents was also their assessment that they could never get hold of anyone responsible at the venue to report noise complaints to and that when these were reported management took a long time to respond.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that none of the Responsible Authorities submitted any representations.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the additional conditions would promote the licensing objectives and deal with the concern of the residents that the licence should only apply when there was a market with market stalls. 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 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.