Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director, Supporting Communities.

This is an application to vary a premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Supporting Communities detailing an application to vary a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 and to the documents in the supplementary agenda.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and explained that the premises was seeking to remove Condition 12 from its licence which was a table meal/restaurant condition which had been imposed at the 19 January 2023 Licensing Panel meeting when variations to its licence (PREM-LIC\3021) were agreed. The premises was located in Camden Town cumulative impact area, where there was a rebuttable presumption to refuse all new and variation applications. In response to questions, it was clarified that the premises currently operated under the old conditions of its licence, not the ones that had been attached to the licence at the 19 January variation hearing. 

The Applicant’s Representative, Andrew Woods, confirmed that he had no amendments to the Application.

The Licensing Authority Responsible Authority representative, Esther Jones, spoke to her representation and her key points were:

·       The premises could not use the extra hours granted on its licence at the 19 January hearing at the moment as Condition 109 stated that the variations could not come into effect unless the Licence Holder could confirm in writing that all conditions had been complied with. No confirmation had yet been received.

·       The premises was thus seeking to vary a licence that had was not currently in use in its current form.

·       There had been complaints received regarding noise, the most recent in September 2023.

·       The premises was located in a cumulative impact Special Policy Area.

Mr Woods asked questions of the Licensing Authority to clarify that there had been a discussion in June 2023 between the Authority and the Applicant to discuss noise complaints and that there had been no complaints since the September 2023 one.

The Police Responsible Authority representative, PC Chris Malone, made the following points in his submission:

·       Removal of Condition 12 would turn the premises into an alcohol-led venue.

·       The Police had objected to the granting of the variation to PREM-LIC\3021 at the 19 January meeting due to their concerns about crime and disorder in the Camden Town area.

·       He was of the view the dispersal policy was ‘too generic’ and did not relate sufficiently to the area the premises was in.

Members and the Applicant’s Representative asked questions about the Police visit to the premises on 17 June 2023. In response, PC Malone confirmed that they had not identified any matters of concern on that visit.

The Panel heard from four Interested Parties: Councillor Richard Cotton, Councillor Pat Callaghan, Kate Gemmell, and Alexandra Janocha. The points made in their submissions included:

·       This application had more representations against it from local residents than most other applications did.

·       Those signing the petition in support or sending letters in support were not local residents and so were not affected by public nuisance caused by the premises.

·       Delancey Street was a residential street and residents’ quality of life was affected by the noise and disturbance caused by activities in and outside the premises.

·       There had been incidents of drunken behaviour and crime and disorder on 11 June 2023 which had resulted in a number of complaints to Responsible Authorities. 

·       Events were often held during the working week, which was particularly disruptive to working residents.

·       The premises had been granted a number of Temporary Event Notices and these had caused more nuisance late at night.

·       Staff did not seem to be implementing the dispersal policy.

·       The premises had stated in a previous hearing that it wanted to hold LGBTQ+ focused events but had not done so.

·       Concern was voiced that, in documents submitted to Planning, the premises had stated its intended maximum capacity was 700 but in other documents it was 450.

A question was asked about the liaison between the premises and residents and Ms Janocha responded that she had wanted to meet with Steve Wilmott at the evening closing times when the greatest disruption was caused, so they could observe it jointly, but they had not yet been able to arrange such a meeting.

The Applicant’s Representative, Mr Woods, spoke to his representation and called Steve Wilmott, the Manager of the premises, as a witness. Points made in their submission included:

·       Condition 12 had been agreed to by mistake in the previous hearing. The premises licence in the “pre-19 January 2023” version they were currently using permitted the service of alcohol to people who were not consuming a meal, and they wished to continue with this when the variations agreed on 19 January 2023 came into force. The premises was a live music venue and not solely a restaurant. Mr Woods clarified that upstairs was a restaurant but downstairs was not.

·       In terms of rebutting the presumption to refuse, Mr Woods expressed the view that the more than 60 additional conditions imposed when the 19 January variation was granted would uphold the licensing objectives. The removal of one of those conditions was not a variation that should be refused if the other conditions were remaining in place.

·       The premises was awaiting planning permission before it could start to implement the new licence. Once the new licence was in use, then they would be liaising with LGBTQ+ promoters and others to put on LGBTQ+ oriented events as part of the mix of events at the premises.

·       The capacity of the premises was 450 and they did not intend to hold rooftop parties.

·       The photographs provided by Interested Parties were general street scene photographs and included people who had not been patrons of the premises and were loitering in the vicinity.

·       Mr Woods acknowledged that there were incidents of concern on 11 June 2023, but that this should be seen as a one-off problem and was not typical of the premises.

·       The Environmental Health Responsible Authority had not made a representation. They were the Responsible Authority who would have submitted a representation regarding the application if noise nuisance had been a significant matter. 

·       Patrons of the premises did not go into Delancey Passage, and so the anti-social behaviour there was not related to the premises.

·       Mr Wilmott had distributed flyers to encourage residents to come to a meeting to discuss their concerns regarding the premises but only one person had attended.

Questions were asked of the Applicant and the following points were made in the discussion:

·       With regard to women’s safety, the premises adhered to “Ask Angela”. They were also involved in other measures such as “Good Night Out” and Mr Wilmott said that he would like to make drink-spiking detection kits available.

·       The aim of the dispersal policy was to encourage people to move to Camden High Street. When people were dispersed, Mr Wilmott took pictures of the road to illustrate this.

·       They had undertaken outreach to LGBTQ+ promoters but had not arranged any events as the new licence and requisite planning permission was not yet in place.

·       The Fire Risk Assessment for the premises stated that the capacity was 450.

Closing remarks were made all parties.

Deliberation and Reasons

The Panel noted that there was some ambiguity or confusion about what the capacity of the venue was, and agreed that, if the variation was granted, to condition that the capacity be 450. The Chair stated that he was minded to condition that there be residents meetings on a quarterly basis, at least initially, to ensure there was liaison between the premises and the local community.

One Member stated that he had voted against granting the variation in January 2023 and did not wish to remove the table meal condition imposed then for good reason, as the premises was located close to residential premises. The other two Members disagreed and were of the opinion that granting the variation subject to the conditions proposed would be appropriate and would uphold the licensing objectives and not add to cumulative impact in the area. 

The Panel therefore agreed by two votes to one to grant the variation.

RESOLVED –

(i)              THAT Condition 12 be removed from PREM-LIC\3021;

(ii)             THAT the following conditions be added to the licence:

·       That the capacity of the venue be a maximum of 450

·       That meetings with local residents be arranged by the premises, initially on a quarterly basis.