The licensing officer tabled proposed conditions from the noise team which would be interleaved with the agenda papers.
The noise officer reported that a number of complaints had been received during an event on the 10 October. On the application form for a temporary event, regulated entertainment had not been ticked. The officer stated that if the noise team had known that regulated entertainment was taking place they would have objected to the event based on the lack of sound insulation on the premises and the number of past complaints. He asked that the licence be refused, but if it were granted, the tabled condition be used to replace condition 2 on page 101 of the report.
One local resident stated that there was no sound insulation on the premises. The party wall was a garden fence and the roof was plastic. Bedrooms were 6 metres away from the premises. At an event in early 2015 a metal band played until 10.30 at night creating disturbance. A further local resident reported that he did not see how children could be protected from harm from the noise nuisance from the premises. The premises could not contain the sound given the structure. Residents could hear the noise arising from the sale of food in the evening. If films were shown there would be incredible noise escape. It was reported that the premises was acoustically transparent and the business was concerned about making money at children’s expense. A local resident reported that the noise from coffee machines and dishwashers could already be heard. The premises were unfit for purpose and residents had no confidence in the applicants. The applicants had already received noise complaints and had shown a disregard for the community. The applicants had not stated how they would address problems. There was already a saturation of licensed premises in the area. Residents understood the desire to maximise revenue streams but stated that the premises was not suitable.
In response to questions it was noted that Leconfield Road was a quiet residential area with young families. On one occasion, the music was so loud that a resident had to leave her house. The only access to the main building was through the Greenhouse which had no soundproofing. Patrons would be congregating in the loading bay area.
The applicant reported that they had held a consultation day for residents. Hours would be until 11pm on weekdays. They would be holding supper clubs and controlled events rather than a bar. They would hold family friendly, community events. It was accepted that an event on the 14 February caused problems. They had given a third party permission to hold an event but did not police it themselves and had not held anything of that nature since. Alcohol would be served with food rather than as a bar. They did not want live music but intended to hold film screening and supper clubs for ticketed events. They were happy to find a compromise. The applicant was paying rent for the café space and if licensed he would have the power to stop problems. The café was not currently working as it was and a wider business needed to be found. It was noted that they only heard about complaints when they had submitted an application in March 2015 and they were shocked. They withdrew this application and had held temporary events since.
A resident spoke in support of the application stating the area was in need of regeneration and this type of venture would bring diversity. He did not believe that live music was the intention. A consultation day had been held and it was hoped to reach a compromise with the residents. The well-being room was through the Greenhouse and should be appropriate. He suggested that, if there was a problem with the Greenhouse it could be demolished.
In response to questions it was noted that events would subsidise the core business. The café was a nice place for members to be. Film screenings would take place in the well-being room which was a brick structure with skylights. It was accepted that there had been teething problems in the early days. They had not been aware of complaints received in early 2015 but once aware they had stopped holding any type of event. On the 10 October 2015 they held a market but did not tick the box stating there would be regulated entertainment. The applicant had experience of catering but not of running a bar. He named two of the four licensing objectives when asked. They agreed with the tabled noise condition.
In summary the noise officer reported that if the licence was granted then live music would also be allowed under the Live Music Act. On the 10 October the activity took place in the afternoon and the noise team were unavailable to witness this event.
The residents reported that the premises was unfit for purpose and compromise could not always be reached. Basic noise was heard every day. The market created a noise nuisance. They asked for refusal and asked that the Sub-Committee listened to a video clip sent earlier in the day.
The applicant stated that all conditions would be accepted. He would liaise with residents who would have direct communication to him for complaints. The well-being room would be used for activities to minimise disruption.
During deliberation the Sub-Committee listened to a noise clip sent in by residents.
That the application for a new premises licence for The Greenhouse, 49 Green Lanes, N16 9BU be refused.
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 noted from the evidence of the residents that there was inadequate sound insulation for the premises which was in close proximity to residential premises. Families with children were living in the area and there had already been problems with noise resulting in loss of sleep for children and loss of amenity for all residents. Loud music emanated from the premises and also the noise of day to day activities such as conversations, and noise from a coffee machine and dishwasher. A market had been held on the premises in October 2015 and had been the subject of complaints. On that occasion, the director of the company had omitted to tick a box stating that regulated entertainment would be taking place when an accordion player and singer were performing. The noise team stated that they would have objected to the TEN if this box had been ticked. The noise team had already been involved and had given advice in March 2015 that they had received multiple calls from residents in connection with low key events in the Greenhouse area and any gatherings under the glass roof outside of normal office hours had to be discouraged.
The steps proposed by the applicant in the operating schedule were not appropriate to control the level of noise emanating from the premises.
Home office guidance 8.34 and 8.35 requires applicants to obtain sufficient information to enable them to demonstrate when setting out steps they propose to take to promote the licensing objectives the layout of the local area, proximity to residential premises and any risks posed to the local area by the applicant’s licensable activities. The applicant had failed to set out in his application how he would manage this risk of public nuisance and had failed to provide adequate dispersal proposals.
Licensing policy 1 states that the licensing authority, in considering applications for new licences, will take into account the location of the premises and character of the area, the views of responsible authorities and other people and the physical suitability of the building proposed for licensable activities.
The Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 10 which states, when assessing the applicant’s ability to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management the licensing authority will take into account whether the applicant can demonstrate knowledge of the licensing objectives. The history of noise nuisance from the premises and complaints showed that the applicant appeared unaware of the potential for noise nuisance of licensable activities. The Sub-Committee was dissatisfied with his grasp of licensing objectives when questioned. The noise team had presented a new condition at the hearing for an acoustic survey to be done and recommendations to be implemented. However, the noise team still recommended refusal. The Sub-Committee noted that the condition involved a survey and then considerable works to be implemented before any licensable activities could take place.
The Sub-Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to the licensing objectives of public nuisance and protection of children from harm and in the public interest to refuse the application.