Agenda item

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, LP4, LP6 and LP11 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard from the Licensing Authority and Other Persons believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the area.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the representations of the Licensing

Authority who objected to this application due the impact it would have on local

residents. The Sub-committee also took into consideration 10 representations

received on behalf of local residents who strongly objected to this application on the grounds of public nuisance.

 

The Sub-committee noted that Environmental Enforcement and the Metropolitan Police Service withdrew their objections in advance of the hearing as they agreed conditions with the applicant.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the Licensing Authority and Other

Persons (local resident's) representations that there were a number of noise complaints received since December 2020 relating to the conversion of the “Bottle Store” and the “Covered Yard” in the customer areas and within the existing licensed area. The Sub-Committee heard that the Licensing Authority raised the noise complaints with the Applicant before the Coronavirus lockdown, however the applicant failed to take any action and the noise complaints continued when the lockdown eased from April 2021.

 

The Sub-committee heard representations from the Licensing Authority that following ongoing noise complaints from April 2021 they visited the premises and found that additional seating had been installed in external areas abutting the boundary walls. The applicant was asked to cease using the additional external areas, the “Bottle Store” and the “Covered Yard”, take steps to mitigate the noise nuisance that was continuing to affect the local residents.

 

The Sub-committee took very seriously that while the use of the external areas

abutting the boundary walls ceased the applicant did not take measures to prevent customers accessing the external areas even though they were aware of the impact that this would have on a number of local residents who live within close proximity of the existing premises. The Applicant's failure to take the necessary measures to prevent noise nuisance that was brought to their attention a number of times which was very disappointing to the Sub-committee and showed that they had no regard for their neighbours and the impact the noise nuisance was having on them.

 

The Sub-committee felt that the grant of a new licence will exacerbate the existing problems causing further noise nuisance and will continue to undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-committee were concerned that there is nothing in the new application that addresses the existing problems given the concerns and unresolved problems of the existing premises. The Sub-committee were disappointed that the applicant did not take the time to make the policy documents (Dispersal Policy and Smoking and AlFresco Dining Policy submitted specific to the premises to try and address the existing issues.

 

The Sub-committee had no confidence that the Applicant would uphold the licensing objectives in particular public nuisance.

 

The Sub-committee took seriously the concerns raised in the Licensing Authority’s representations that instead of the Applicant trying to resolve the problems and issues associated with the premises for some time they decided to concentrate their efforts to increase the footprint of the premises to directly abut the perimeter wall.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the Noise report but felt the changes proposed were not enough to resolve the noise issues.

 

The Sub-committee felt the current premises licence is fit for purpose and does

cover the back external areas, however, the Applicant has failed to manage the

premises. The Sub-committee felt the Applicant needed to work on meeting conditions of the current licence and not renew or obtain a new licence.

 

The Sub-committee noted the Applicant wanted a new licence because they felt it would be better and would meet the licensing requirements.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the use of the outside space and felt the details were not clear.

 

The Sub-committee took into account local residents' concerns about the capacity of 120 outside. The Sub-committee were disappointed that no information on the capacity and the outside area was provided in advance of the hearing.

 

The Sub-committee are really concerned the Applicant may be in breach of their current licence. The Sub-committee felt it would be wrong to give a new licence when they cannot operate under the existing licence which is subject to enforcement action.

 

The Sub-committee felt the Applicant did not prove their case and why a new licence should be granted. Sub-committee took into consideration the complaints from local residents and felt the Applicant needed to sort out their process and procedures and that should be demonstrated.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the licensee had implemented

mitigation measures and was offering an external area management plan, however ,it is not clear what impact these would have had. The noise report stated that the noise had reduced but the local residents have informed that the measures have made no difference.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the Applicant is now seeking to

regularise the external areas of the premises with operational hours in line with the internal areas. The Sub-committee after considering the evidence presented to the felt that by granting this licence would lead to significant noise nuisance and disturbance to local residents in the area who have been reporting noise nuisance at the premises for some time. Therefore, the Sub-committee decided to refuse this application in its entirety.

 

Your right to appeal

 

If you are aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction attached to this decision, you have the right to appeal to the Thames Magistrates Court, 58 Bow Road, London E3 4DJ within 21 days of the date you receive this written decision.

5.1  The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, the Applicant's legal representative, the applicant, the Licensing Authority and Other Persons. The sub-committee noted the additional information submitted by the Applicant and Other Persons as well as correspondence between Applicant the and ‘Other Person’. The application sought regulated entertainment, late night refreshment and on and off sales of alcohol.

 

5.2  During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the following points were highlighted:

 

·  The premises operated as a pub. The Applicant's legal representative stated that the purpose of the application was to replace the existing licence which the Applicant considered to be outdated and no longer fit for purpose.  The licence in place did not reflect the layout of the premises, the conditions did not address the issues of use of the external area(s) and noise control of patrons.

·  The application requested a narrower remit with no bank holiday extended hours.

·  The new licence would have 60 conditions which have been approved by the Responsible Authorities. Subsequently the Police and Environmental Health had withdrawn their objections.

·  An acoustic report was commissioned, copies of which had been circulated and its findings implemented.

·  Rose Pubs had operated the premises for over 10 years

·  Two meetings had been held with local residents which were facilitated by the Licensing Authority following which the acoustic report as well as other suggested measures were implemented.

·  The Licensing Authority’s objection to the application primarily related to noise nuisance following a series of complaints. Concerns were also raised about the boundary walls of the garden which extended beyond the current plan.

·  No planning issues or irregularities were reported.

·  Representations submitted by ‘Other Persons’ were predominantly concerning noise nuisance emanating from the beer garden at the rear of the premises. Residents believed that the use of the rear garden had been extended without planning permission to include the bottle store which bordered residential premises.

·  Residents had requested involvement in choosing the acoustic consultant to ensure neutrality but this was declined.  It was believed that the report did not include peak noise levels.

·  The pub was located in a largely residential area. Noise nuisance was described as crowd noise which included jeering, chanting, shouting and singing which happened even when relatively small numbers of people were present. This had significantly impacted the mental health of some neighbours in the vicinity.

·  Residents believed that the application was submitted due to the likelihood of the licence being reviewed and therefore to normalise use of unauthorised areas.

·  The Applicant reported that the outdoor space was used in a more prolific way during the pandemic.  In the new plans, any areas that bordered neighbours’ property were noted as having no customer access.

·  Residents confirmed when use of the rear garden was as per the existing licence, there were no issues. Problems arose due to the unauthorised use of the wider space. Residents raised concerns regarding the incorporation of previously unlicensed areas of the garden which were included in the application.

·  The Applicant and his legal representative confirmed that alcohol had never been served in the areas in question in the rear garden (bottle stores and covered area). Due to having off sales on the current licence, alcohol could be consumed in these areas.

·  The capacity of the outside area based on the fire risk assessment was reported by the Applicant to be 120 people. All findings of the acoustic assessment as well as recommendations from Environmental Enforcement have been implemented.

·  The Applicant was amenable to having a seated only condition for the outside area, but did not agree to the suggested limit of 40 patrons.

·  Members raised concerns relating to the capacity of the outdoor area and lack of an operational management plan specifically for the outside area.

 

RESOLVED: 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, LP4, LP6 and LP11 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard from the Licensing Authority and Other Persons believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the area.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the representations of the Licensing

Authority who objected to this application due the impact it would have on local

residents. The Sub-committee also took into consideration 10 representations

received on behalf of local residents who strongly objected to this application on the grounds of public nuisance.

 

The Sub-committee noted that Environmental Enforcement and the Metropolitan Police Service withdrew their objections in advance of the hearing as they agreed conditions with the applicant.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the Licensing Authority and Other

Persons (local resident's) representations that there were a number of noise complaints received since December 2020 relating to the conversion of the “Bottle Store” and the “Covered Yard” in the customer areas and within the existing licensed area. The Sub-Committee heard that the Licensing Authority raised the noise complaints with the Applicant before the Coronavirus lockdown, however the applicant failed to take any action and the noise complaints continued when the lockdown eased from April 2021.

 

The Sub-committee heard representations from the Licensing Authority that following ongoing noise complaints from April 2021 they visited the premises and found that additional seating had been installed in external areas abutting the boundary walls. The applicant was asked to cease using the additional external areas, the “Bottle Store” and the “Covered Yard”, take steps to mitigate the noise nuisance that was continuing to affect the local residents.

 

The Sub-committee took very seriously that while the use of the external areas

abutting the boundary walls ceased the applicant did not take measures to prevent customers accessing the external areas even though they were aware of the impact that this would have on a number of local residents who live within close proximity of the existing premises. The Applicant's failure to take the necessary measures to prevent noise nuisance that was brought to their attention a number of times which was very disappointing to the Sub-committee and showed that they had no regard for their neighbours and the impact the noise nuisance was having on them.

 

The Sub-committee felt that the grant of a new licence will exacerbate the existing problems causing further noise nuisance and will continue to undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-committee were concerned that there is nothing in the new application that addresses the existing problems given the concerns and unresolved problems of the existing premises. The Sub-committee were disappointed that the applicant did not take the time to make the policy documents (Dispersal Policy and Smoking and AlFresco Dining Policy submitted specific to the premises to try and address the existing issues.

 

The Sub-committee had no confidence that the Applicant would uphold the licensing objectives in particular public nuisance.

 

The Sub-committee took seriously the concerns raised in the Licensing Authority’s representations that instead of the Applicant trying to resolve the problems and issues associated with the premises for some time they decided to concentrate their efforts to increase the footprint of the premises to directly abut the perimeter wall.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the Noise report but felt the changes proposed were not enough to resolve the noise issues.

 

The Sub-committee felt the current premises licence is fit for purpose and does

cover the back external areas, however, the Applicant has failed to manage the

premises. The Sub-committee felt the Applicant needed to work on meeting conditions of the current licence and not renew or obtain a new licence.

 

The Sub-committee noted the Applicant wanted a new licence because they felt it would be better and would meet the licensing requirements.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the use of the outside space and felt the details were not clear.

 

The Sub-committee took into account local residents' concerns about the capacity of 120 outside. The Sub-committee were disappointed that no information on the capacity and the outside area was provided in advance of the hearing.

 

The Sub-committee are really concerned the Applicant may be in breach of their current licence. The Sub-committee felt it would be wrong to give a new licence when they cannot operate under the existing licence which is subject to enforcement action.

 

The Sub-committee felt the Applicant did not prove their case and why a new licence should be granted. Sub-committee took into consideration the complaints from local residents and felt the Applicant needed to sort out their process and procedures and that should be demonstrated.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the licensee had implemented

mitigation measures and was offering an external area management plan, however ,it is not clear what impact these would have had. The noise report stated that the noise had reduced but the local residents have informed that the measures have made no difference.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the Applicant is now seeking to

regularise the external areas of the premises with operational hours in line with the internal areas. The Sub-committee after considering the evidence presented to the felt that by granting this licence would lead to significant noise nuisance and disturbance to local residents in the area who have been reporting noise nuisance at the premises for some time. Therefore, the Sub-committee decided to refuse this application in its entirety.