Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that he had received verbal notification that the resident in attendance was to speak on behalf of the interested party.  However, written confirmation had not yet been received. The resident stated that an email had been sent to the licensing team that day.  The applicant’s representative agreed that the resident be allowed to speak on behalf of the interested party.

The local resident stated that she had visited the premises and considered that it looked appealing to young people.  There was outdoor heating and a happy hour Monday to Friday.  She stated that there had been vertical drinking in the premises and this variation would be used as a lever to further increase hours to 02:30am.  She considered that this was a dangerous precedent and that an application could be made for premises to open as a specialist café and then have a variation agreed for a licence which had little to do with the original application. 

The applicant’s representative stated that this was a Cuban café with a coffee roaster which served homemade Cuban recipes and fruit juice.  Eight full-time kitchen staff were employed and the applicant had invested 1 million in the premises.  This was a food led establishment where 80% of sales were food. Existing conditions of the licence required that, there would be no vertical drinking, no drinking outside the premises, alcohol would be only served with food and there would be no off sales.  These conditions were observed.  No regulatory issues or complaints had been received during the operation of the premises. This was an application within policy.  The original application had been determined within licensing policies 6 and 8.  The application was within licensing policy framework hours and planning permission had also been granted for these hours.  No objections had been received from the responsible authorities and the premises had been visited by the police and licensing officers who had been complimentary about the business.  There had been no objections from neighbours or those living on an obvious route to and from the premises.  The client had invited the interested party to the premises to look at the operation but had received no response.  The premises had complied with their licence, was a credit to Islington, was within policy guidelines and the application should be approved.

In response to questions, the applicant’s representative stated that this application was not a precursor to an application for a night club.  The current hours, which did not allow alcohol to be sold after 8.30pm, meant that people did not come into the premises to eat in the evening.  The police had not objected and they would have done so if there was a crime risk.  The premises had given no regulatory concern and it was expected that the conditions would provide assurance.  The applicant’s representative stated that because of the early hour for the sale of alcohol he was finding that the premises had lost business in the evening.  He had tried to open on Saturdays but this had not been successful. With the current hours customers may leave and go to another premises that was drink led.  The applicant was not anticipating a change in the food/drink split and was looking towards a move to a greater food led environment.  The applicant stressed that the business did not mirror the structure at the Waterloo premises.  Any further increase in hours would need to be applied for and would be directly contrary to policy.  The food side of the business at the Waterloo premises was developing.  The applicant’s representative reported that alcohol would be ancillary to food and would be a unique food driven sustainable restaurant model.

In summary, the local resident considered that when she visited the premises it did not look like a food led premises and people were standing outside with drinks in their hands. The applicant’s representative rejected this and stated that if officers saw this happening they were welcome to prosecute.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence variation in respect of Cubana, 61 Charterhouse Street, EC1M 6HJbe granted with the conditions of the current licence as follows:-

i)       To vary the times for sale of alcohol, for consumption on the premises, to 12:00 and 23:00, Sunday to Thursday and 12:00 until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.

ii)      To allow the provision of late night refreshment between 23:00 and midnight, Friday and Saturday.

iii)    To vary the opening hours to 07:00 and 23:00 Sunday to Thursday and 07:00 to midnight on Friday and Saturday. 

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 Clerkenwell cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations to 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.

There was one local resident objector who was represented at the meeting. 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 8.  The Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 6 and noted that planning consent had been granted for the hours sought.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that alcohol sales were ancillary to food and the existing licence with short licensing hours made the operation of a successful food led operation difficult. The applicant stated that a food led operation was the future of the business and that an increase in hours would not change the nature of the operation.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the increase in hours sought would not add to the existing cumulative impact in the area.