Agenda item

Boulevard, Ground Floor, 12-14 Lodge Road, London, NW8 7JA (“The Premises”)

18/13847/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

Michael Nickson (Agent, representing the Applicant) began by confirming that the application was to provide late night refreshment until 01:00 hrs Monday to Sunday, which did not include proposals for takeaway, nor would any fast food be served. There were also no proposals to supply alcohol or regulated entertainment. Mr Nickson advised that the Applicant had already acquired planning permission for the activities applied for above and that the application had been welcomed by a neighbouring hotel and a number of local residents. The Applicant had proposed a number of conditions and every effort was being made to adhere to licensing policy. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed conditions with the Police, who had withdrawn their representation. Mr Nickson stated that the Applicant had written to ward Councillors and local residents offering to meet with them to discuss their concerns, but had received no response and he then read out the letter that had been sent.

Mr Nickson stated that the Premises was located in a busy area next to a large hotel and there was also a 24 hour convenience store nearby. The terminal hour for late night refreshment was modest at 01:00 hrs. In respect of shisha smoking, this may happen in the outside area of the Premises, but its principle business was to operate as a café which also offered late night refreshment. In respect of some of the conditions proposed by Environmental Health, Mr Nickson contended that some of these were inappropriate and therefore the Applicant had not agreed to proposed conditions 21, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 29 in the report suggested by them. He stated that the outside area was clearly defined in the plans and there were large concrete bollards and planters demarking the Premises from the public area. Mr Nickson stated that after 23:00 hrs, there would be a member of staff to manage the outside area, including entry to the Premises. He felt that moving outside tables and chairs indoors after 23:00 hrs would be impractical, a condition suggested by Environmental Health.

HebbahShaban (Director, Applicant Company) then addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that she had acquired the Premises in September 2018. There had been extensive refurbishment and the walls and ceiling had been soundproofed. She reiterated that both the hotel, including its guests, and residents were supportive of the application. In respect of the outside area, as well as being managed by a member of staff, there would be notices both inside and outside of the building reminding customers to be quiet, including when leaving the Premises. These preventative measures were to help promote the public nuisance licensing objective.

The Sub-Committee sought clarification about the extent of shisha smoking that was likely to take place at the Premises as this could be a potential source of public nuisance, particularly later in the evening as this activity would take place outside.

In reply, Ms Shaban confirmed that shisha smoking would only be a minor element of business and the Premises would operate as a high end, fashionable café and items would be priced accordingly.

Maxwell Koduah (Environmental Health) then addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that his main cause of concern was in respect of his proposed condition 22 which stated that “All outside tables and chairs shall be rendered unusable or be removed by 23:00 hours each day.” Mr Koduah felt that this condition was necessary as the outside forecourt area had no soundproofing and so there was potential for noise and public nuisance after 23:00hrs. Mr Koduah appreciated the efforts of the Applicant to address concerns raised, however he commented that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant, then there needed to be an appropriate condition relating to the use of the outside area.

The Sub-Committee expressed concern about the potential for noise in the outside area and asked what other steps the Applicant would take to address public nuisance. The Sub-Committee asked how many tables and chairs would occupy the outside area and would the Applicant be satisfied for a condition to limit capacity to the outside area after 23:00.

The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee asked whether the Applicant was willing to re-consider proposed conditions 21, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 29 from Environmental Health in the report relating to the use of the outside area as this would have an impact on residents given the concentration of people in one particular space.

In reply to queries from the Sub-Committee and the Legal Adviser, Mr Nickson stated that the canopy and planters in the outside area were designed to mitigate noise and he asserted that shisha smoking was a peaceful activity. In relation to proposed condition 22, Mr Nickson stated that this was an issue for the Applicant as it meant that effectively the outside area could not be used after 23:00hrs. Without a premises licence, Mr Nickson stated that the Applicant would be able to provide cold food and drinks to the outside area in any case. However, by applying for a Premises licence, this would help regulate the use of the outside area. Mr Nickson added that proposed conditions 21, 25, 27, 28 and 29 were all dependent on what was determined in respect of condition 22.

Ms Shaban informed the Sub-Committee that there would be around 40 seats in the outside area. He felt that limiting the capacity to the outside area could potentially impact upon business so consideration would need to be given as to how to balance this, and the use of Security Industry Approved (SIA) door staff would also bring additional costs. Ms Shaban stated that she would prefer an overall capacity for the Premises

Mr Koduah advised that the Premises could have a capacity of up to 60 persons based on the fact that it had two WCs. He suggested that there be no more than 20 persons permitted in the outside area after 23:00hrs and also a condition requesting the use of SIA door staff could be considered.

After carefully considering matters the Sub-Committee granted the application,  subject to amendments to some proposed conditions, including amending condition 25 in the report so that the number of persons in the outside area be limited to a capacity of 20 persons after 23:00hrs. The Sub-Committee considered that amending this condition by reducing the permitted number of persons after 23:00hrs would address concerns raised by Environmental Health, ward councillors, a local amenity society and a resident about noise leading to public nuisance at later hours. The Sub-Committee accepted that removing or rendering unusable outside chairs and tables  by 23:00hrs would impact upon the Applicant’s ability to use the outside area and so condition 22 in the report was accordingly amended so that this condition came into effect at 01:00hrs. The Sub-Committee deleted proposed conditions 27, 28 and 29 in the report as the amendment to conditions 22 and 25 effectively meant they were not applicable.

In determining the application, the Sub-Committee noted that the Premises was not located in a cumulative impact area and the sale of alcohol was not proposed. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee considered that the conditions to be added were appropriate and proportionate and would help assist the Applicant in upholding the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm) and accordingly the application was granted.

2.

Hours Premises are open to the public

Monday to Sunday: 08:00 to 01:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).