Menu

• Calendar
• Committees
• Decisions
• Forthcoming Decisions
• Forward plans
• Meetings
• Search documents
• Subscribe to updates
• Councillors
• MPs
• What's New

Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Licensing Sub Committee A - Tuesday 9 August 2022 7.00 pm

• Attendance details
• Agenda frontsheet PDF 265 KB
• Agenda reports pack PDF 23 MB
• Printed decisions PDF 64 KB
• Printed draft minutes PDF 89 KB

Venue: Until further notice, all Council meetings will be held remotely

Contact: Natalie Williams, Governance Officer 

Items

No.	Item
1.	Election of Chair Minutes:   1.1   Cllr Moema was duly elected as Chair of the meeting.
2.	Apologies for Absence Minutes: 2.1  There were no apologies for absence.
3.	Declarations of Interest - Members to declare as appropriate Minutes: 3.1  There were no declarations of interest.
4.	Minutes of the Previous Meeting Minutes: 4.1  There were no minutes for consideration.
5.	Licensing Sub Committee General Information & Hearing Procedure PDF 112 KB Additional documents: Hearing Procedure A [Re; Premises Licence, Club Premises Certificate, Provisional Statement & Sex Establishment Licence], 16/06/2022 Licensing Sub Committee C , item 5. PDF 199 KB Minutes:   5.1  The hearing procedure was noted by all present.
6.	Variation Premises Licence: Timbar, Ground Floor, 8 Stoke Newington Road, London, N16 7XN PDF 15 MB Decision: RESOLVED:   The Decision:   The Licensing Sub-committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:   The prevention of crime and disorder; Public safety; Prevention of public nuisance; The protection of children from harm;   the application to vary a premises licence has been refused in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3, and LP10 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.   Reasons for the decision   The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard from the Other Persons (local residents) believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the Dalston Special Policy Area (Dalston SPA).   The Sub-committee took into consideration the representations of the Other Persons who objected to this application due the impact it would have late at night on local residents. The Sub-committee noted that the premises is in the centre of the Dalston SPA, and the premises currently holds a premises licence for the sale of alcohol.   The Sub-committee took into account that the Applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated how they would not add to the cumulative impact in the Dalston SPA. The Sub-committee took into consideration that the proposed hours for recorded music until 02:00 would attract customers late at night.   The Sub-committee carefully considered the representations made by the Applicant, and the Applicant’s joint owner/ business partner, and they took into consideration the work they had done to improve the premises to prevent noise breakout  alongside the representations of the Other Persons. The Applicant did not allay the concerns raised by the Other Persons.   The Sub-committee was not convinced that the Applicant’s proposed hours for recorded music until 02:00 would justify them making an exception to grant hours outside the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-committee after hearing from the Applicant felt that the Applicant lacked the understanding of the importance of having a robust Dispersal Policy.   The Sub-committee took into consideration that the premises is currently open 24 hours, and near a residential area that will have a negative impact on local residents if the premises operated to a late hour, and could give rise to public nuisance in the Dalston SPA.        The Sub-committee sympathised with the Applicant’s circumstances, and the impact on the premises following the Covid-19 restrictions during the pandemic. However, the Applicant has not been able to demonstrate adequate exceptional circumstances, to justify the proposed hours in the Dalston SPA. The Sub-committee cannot take into consideration financial circumstances as a reason to grant the variation.    The Sub-committee took into consideration when refusing this application that each case is considered on its merits. The Sub-committee believed that the licensing objectives could not be promoted by granting this variation application, and as such believed it was appropriate to refuse the application in its entirety. Minutes:   6.1  The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer and the applicant. During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the sub-committee noted the following:   The applicant stated that he wanted to vary the premises licence to allow authorisation for the provision of regulated entertainment on Mondays to Sundays.  The applicant responded that he would not be adding to the cumulative impact in the Dalston Special policy Area (SPA) as the premises would not be attracting more people into the area but playing music to the patrons already on the premises. In reference to the ‘Other Persons’ representation, the applicant advised that he had made improvements to the premises and installed a sound limiter system to address local residents' complaints relating to noise nuisance emanating from the premises. The Council had visited the premises and recorded the sound level at 84 decibels. The smoking area, where no more than six people were permitted, was at the rear of the premises and there was an automatic door leading to this area as well as security staff. The applicant confirmed that the lease was for sale.  The business was currently making a financial loss following the COVID pandemic and he wanted to operate as food-led premises in future. The applicant had to apply for Temporary Event Notices (TENs) when hosting private parties or ticketed events and the maximum TENs had been granted.  There had been no issues or incidents at the events held under TENs. The applicant stated that the music causing the nuisance was coming from his neighbour’s premises. It was noted that the Other Persons had submitted additional information. The Other Persons expressed concern that the premises were located within a residential area which was saturated with many licensed premises.  The proposed late night music would add to the cumulative impact in the Dalston SPA and have a detrimental impact on local residents’ lives due to the potential rise in  public nuisance.  Furthermore, the dispersal policy needed to be more robust to minimise public nuisance. The Other Persons clarified that the noise was escaping from the applicant’s premises when the doors opened or remained open during the early hours of the morning and he had been recently disturbed at approximately 00.45 hours for approximately 15 minutes.  He had complained to the applicant on several occasions about the noise nuisance arising from the unregulated entertainment and non-smokers being allowed to use the rear garden. The applicant stated that the music was not coming from his premises and that he had spoken to his staff reminding them to close the door to the rear garden.  The objector had not complained directly to the applicant The Other Persons confirmed that there had been some improvement in the public nuisance since the works had been undertaken at the premises including installation of the sound limiter but the noise nuisance remained. The Other Persons confirmed that the photos submitted were dated from 2021 except for the sale of the lease, which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.
7.	Application for a Premises Licence: 255 Mare Street, London, E8 3NS PDF 7 MB Decision: RESOLVED:   The decision:   The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from the parties, however, before the hearing concluded the Applicant decided to WITHDRAW their application.   Minutes: 7.1  The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, Counsel for the applicant and the Metropolitan Police. During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the sub-committee noted the following:   ·  Since the publication of the officer report, the applicant had reduced the proposed hours to align with the Council’s Core Hours. ·  The applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant had extensive experience in the security industry, there would  be three SIA staff on duty on Fridays to Saturdays and the external area would close and doors would be locked at 21.00 hours.  The external area would be monitored by CCTV cameras from 21.00 hours and up to 10 persons would be allowed in the external area but the maximum capacity was 20 persons. ·  The Police representative requested that the non-standard hours be removed from the application and sought clarification regarding dispersal and if the new management team would include any managers working for the previous premises licence holder and recommended personal licence training for the applicant. ·  The Licensing representative indicated that the applicant had made improvements to the premises to address local residents' concerns.  However, he expressed concerns regarding the external area closing at 21.00 hours and the potential rise in public nuisance and requested that music be played at background level only.  ·  The Other Persons expressed concerns regarding the proposed hours, operation of the premises as a family pub, the closing hours of the external area and the impact of public nuisance and crime and disorder following a stabbing incident at the premises in 2013/14.  The premises were surrounded by five storey buildings, which created an echo chamber with 2 people and 50 persons would be permitted in the external area. Local residents would not be able to enjoy their gardens with family and children and the adults and children in the bedrooms facing the external area would have their sleep disrupted. ·  The Other Persons were concerned that the proposed measures for the external area were inadequate and people would remain beyond 21.00 hours. ·  The Other Persons indicated that the area had been open until 21.00 hours under the previous owners and that he had made complaints to the Council about the  public nuisance continuing in the external area until 22.00 hours.  The proposals could not be described as a neighbourhood pub. ·  The sub committee proposed closing the external area by 20.00 hours.  The Other Persons stated that the premises were located within a residential area that was building more residential accommodation; doors were not soundproofed with noise escaping from the premises which prevented residents in the vicinity being able to enjoy the use of their gardens. ·  The applicant’s counsel confirmed that the previous owner would not be involved in his business, that the applicant was a responsible operator and would operate within the core hours, and agreed to the proposal to close the external area by 20.00 hours. ·  The applicant’s counsel emphasised that the issues with the previous owners should not be taken into consideration when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.
8.	Temporary Event Notices - Standing Item Decision: There were no temporary event notices. Minutes: 8.1  There were no Temporary Event Notices for consideration.