The licensing officer reported that the noise officer had withdrawn their representations following agreement with conditions. A document proposing additional conditions and amended hours, had been circulated by the applicant which would be interleaved with the agenda papers.
The police objected to the application based on the cumulative impact policy. The officer reported that there were 34 licensed premises within a 250m radius of the venue and 240 allegations of crime in the ward. He did not consider that the premises being situated next door to a police station would prevent crime and disorder or public safety. He had concerns regarding the completion of the operating schedule and there was nothing in the application that had allayed his fears.
The applicant informed the Sub-Committee that hours were amended for the sale of alcohol for Sundays to Thursdays to 11pm and Fridays and Saturdays to 11:30 pm. Late night refreshment would be to 11.30 pm on Fridays and Saturdays only. There would be no off sales of alcohol. The police were unable to attribute any crime to the venue. There would be no vertical drinking. Drinking in a restaurant was at a much slower pace than a bar or pub. It was not considered that the premises would add to the cumulative impact with the conditions. The fumes from the chimney stack mentioned in the local resident representation were not from this premises.
In response to questions it was noted that there were 34 covers. The applicant had run an off licence for ten years and had now been managing the restaurant for five months. The premises would not add to the cumulative impact policy. The applicant was happy to agree a condition regarding high strength beers to discourage street drinkers. There would be no off sales.
In summary, the police stated that they had concerns regarding the take away aspect of the application. It was stated that patrons entering at 9 or 10 pm may already be drunk and could cause problems. To refuse to sell alcohol to patrons who were already drunk would need strong management. This venue would attract this type of patron.
The applicant reported that a late night refreshment licence was only required for one hour on Fridays and Saturdays. There was a review procedure if there were problems but the agent did not consider that the applicant would be reviewed.
a) That The Sub-Committee have decided to grant the application for a new premises licence in respect of Angel Best Mangel, 60 Penton Street, N1 9PZ
i) To permit the premises to sell alcohol, on supplies only, Sunday to Thursday from 11:00am until 11pm and Fridays and Saturdays from 11am until 11:30pm.
ii) To allow the provision of late night refreshment on Friday and Saturday from 23:00 until midnight.
iii) Opening hours to be Monday to Saturday from 11:00 am until midnight and on Sundays from 11am until 11pm.
b) Conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on page 205 of the agenda, the additional conditions tabled by the applicant with the following additionsshall be applied to the licence.
· There be no beers/cider and lagers higher than 6.5% abv sold on the premises.
· A phone number for the designated premises supervisor shall be visible from outside the premises.
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 Policy 2. The premises fall under the Kings Cross cumulative impact area. Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that within a radius of 250m of the premises there were 34 other licensed premises. The police were concerned that in the application the applicant on more than one occasion cited the fact that the premises were next to the police station, but this was not enough to show why there would be no crime and disorder. A nearby late night refreshment venue had a huge amount of anti-social behaviour and they did not have an alcohol licence. Although the applicant may manage his premises differently, the nature of the premises would attract drunken people. It would have to have exceptionally strong management and this was not illustrated in the operating schedule.
The Sub-Committee noted that the noise team conditions had been agreed and the representation withdrawn.
The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought had been reduced. The applicant had ten years’ experience in the off licence trade. The Sub-Committee noted the conditions offered by the applicant including that alcohol would be ancillary to food, the premises would operate Challenge 25, there would be CCTV to home office standards, there would be regular staff training, there would be an incident book, no under eighteens would be allowed to drink alcohol on the premises and there would be no more than six smokers permitted at a time. The applicant stated that, with the reduced hours and these conditions, the premises would not add to the cumulative impact. The Sub-Committee noted that there were only 34 covers.
The Sub-Committee noted that there were to be no off sales and that drinking was only permitted with a table meal. The applicant indicated that he would be happy with a condition relating to high strength ales and beers and that it was believed that with these measures the premises would not add to any street drinking problems in the area. The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s comments that the chimney stack was brand new and that any fumes encountered by neighbouring properties could not be from his stack.
The Sub-Committee took into account licensing policies 2, 8 and 11.
The Sub-Committee were satisfied that, with the addition of the stringent conditions, the grant of the premises licence would not add to the cumulative impact and would promote the licensing objectives.