Agenda item

The Licensing Officer updated the committee explaining that they had received various email communications each explaining the facility was to be used for different things, therefore it was not clear whether the facility would be used as a ‘members bar’ for Ukrainian students or as a bar open to the public.

No interested parties were present.

The applicant’s representative apologised for the mix up in communications, telling the committee they had recently lost their father and therefore had not been as focused as they usually would have been.

The representative explained that they had initially applied for this to be a venue for a member’s club for Ukrainian Students due to the fact the applicant worked closely with Ukrainian students studying in the UK but after speaking with Licensing Officers they decided to change this to allow the bar to be open to the general public as well as the students.

They further explained they had tried to communicate with residents to help mitigate the issues surrounding noise and nuisance but had not been successful in these communications. They had also introduced a noise mitigation policy and sound proofing to the facility and had reduced the hours applied for from those originally sought. They were willing to work with and have open communication with residents that had concerns and had already agreed conditions with the Responsible Authorities.

In response to questions from the Committee it was confirmed that changes to the premises use, specifically the decision to transition to an open public bar, were made following consultations with the Police and Licensing Officers. The rationale behind this decision was to accommodate a wider audience.

Concerns were raised regarding the implementation of Challenge 25 policy and combatting underage drinking. The Bar Manager explained that identification checks would be conducted on individuals who appear to be under the age of 25, with a need for physical identification documents not photocopied versions.

Clarifications were sought regarding the nature of the premises, particularly whether it was a Ukrainian-themed club. It was clarified that while the establishment primarily targets Ukrainian students studying in London, it operated as a normal bar and would be open to the public.

Regarding the dispersal of intoxicated individuals, it was noted that conditions had been agreed upon with the Police. Additionally, it was emphasised that while the premises primarily function was as a bar, it was also a space for group engagements and alcohol would be supplementary to this.

Updates were provided regarding the current operational status of the premises. The Bar Manager told the committee that the establishment had not served alcohol for sale in the past two months, this had only been served free of charge to friends and family while practicing mixology. One Temporary Event Notice (TEN) had been issued from December 20th to January 3rd.

Furthermore, inquiries were made about the licensing experience of the Bar Manager. It was disclosed that the applicant had obtained a personal license six weeks prior, and while the applicant was unable to attend the meeting, they possessed extensive knowledge in the field. Lastly, the issue of a written dispersal policy was raised, to which it was agreed that one would be prepared if the license was granted.

Upon retiring to deliberate, the Sub-Committee initially considered that the matter should be adjourned to a date which would allow the applicant to attend in person and provide more information in respect of the proposed operation of the premises.  However, upon hearing representations against the adjournment from the applicant’s representative, the Sub-Committee resolved to continue their deliberations and reach a decision in respect of the application. The Sub-Committee then decided to refuse the application.

RESOLVED:

DECISION

The Sub-Committee has decided to REFUSE the application for a new premises licence to Rush Cocktails, Basement, 100 Old Street, London, EC1V 9AY.

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 Bunhill 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 but they were not present. Conditions had been agreed with the Noise team and the Police.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the framework hours specified in licensing policy 6, although it was noted that the hours had been amended from the original application.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s representative that the applicant could not be present because he had been called back to Ukraine by the President. The representative stated that the original application had been for a bar exclusively serving Ukrainian students but that following discussions with the Licensing Police it would be open to all members of the public but still primarily aimed at Ukrainian students. The hours had been reduced after communication with the Police. The applicant had noted residents’ concerns about noise and had attempted to communicate with residents, but this was unsuccessful. All that they could do as responsible management was make sure staff were trained, a noise mitigation policy was introduced, and sound proofing was carried out. Contact details had been given to residents and if any calls were received the management would act accordingly. The applicant’s representative stated that the Police had not required a written dispersal policy from the premises, but they were happy to produce one if necessary.

The applicant’s representative introduced the proposed bar manager who was asked by the Sub-Committee how he would operate the policy of Challenge 25. It appeared to the Sub-Committee that he did not initially understand the question, but after a brief discussion with the representative he confirmed that he would check ID and would not accept photocopied versions. It was confirmed that the proposed bar manager had completed his personal license training 6 weeks ago but that the applicant was very experienced.

Upon retiring to deliberate, the Sub-Committee initially considered that the matter should be adjourned to a date which would allow the applicant to attend in person and provide more information in respect of the proposed operation of the premises.  However, upon hearing representations against the adjournment from the applicant’s representative, the Sub-Committee resolved to continue their deliberations and reach a decision in respect of the application.  The Sub-Committee then decided to refuse the application.

The Sub-Committee was concerned about the standards of management at the premises and the exact nature of the proposed business. The Sub-Committee noted that conditions had been agreed with the Police and Noise team, but it was not clear whether, at the time that the conditions were agreed, those authorities were aware that the premises would be open to the public.

The Sub-Committee was concerned, on the evidence before it, that insufficient thought had been given to the responsibilities of a license holder where premises were open to the public. The Sub-Committee concluded that in the circumstances, urged as they were to determine the application at the hearing, granting the license even with the conditions agreed, would not promote the licensing objectives.

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