Agenda item

Application for a new premises licence.

RECEIVED the application made by Starfish & Coffee House Limited for the premises known as and situated at The Starfish & Coffee, 92 Aldermans Hill, London, N13 4PP for a new Premises Licence.

 

NOTED

 

1.    The introductory statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, including the following points:

a.  The venue was previously an estate agents and had therefore never had a premises licence.

b.  The application for a new premises licence had been made by Mr Aykut Hilmi on behalf of Starfish & Coffee House Limited.

c.  The hours sought were as set out on page 1 of the agenda pack.

d.  The application had been considered by the Police and the Licensing Authority and, following agreement on modified conditions, their representations were withdrawn.

e.  A further 12 representations had been made against the application and two representations in support, from interested parties who were local residents. The representations were set out in Annex 03 to the report.

f.  The applicant had attempted to mediate with objectors, but only two interested parties attended the meeting. No representations were subsequently withdrawn or amended.

g.  The interested parties’ representations were based on concerns related to the licensing objectives of public safety, prevention of crime and disorder, and prevention of public nuisance. There were concerns about the outside seating area in particular, noise, traffic and parking, intimidation by customers, littering, and about what future owners might do.

h.  Interested parties 3 and 8 had proposed modifications to a licence to limit opening hours until 16:00/16:30 Sunday to Friday and to 18:00 Saturday, and to 21:00 one night per month.

i.  A street trading licence had been granted in September 2015, permitting outside seating at the venue.

j.  A temporary event notice was in place on 17/10/15, and no complaints had been made to the Council.

k.  Recent legislation changes relating to regulated entertainment were highlighted, as set out in Para 4 of the report.

l.  The licence would be in the name of Starfish & Coffee Limited, not Mr Hilmi. Mr and Mrs Hilmi were directors of the company and were present at this hearing.

m.  IP7, Mr Younger, was acting as spokesperson for the interested parties and on behalf of Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association. IP3, IP10 and IP11 were also present at this hearing.

n.  In response to Members’ queries regarding the street trading licence, Charlotte Palmer advised that this had been referred to for information as some of the representations related to the outside tables and chairs. That licence was separate from today’s hearing. Interested parties confirmed that they were aware of the situation and understood that they were without an ability to object to the street trading licence.

 

2.    The statement of Mr Colin Younger, on behalf of the interested parties, including the following points:

a.  He highlighted that stricter conditions may be applied where a premises was in or adjacent to residential areas, so that disturbance could be avoided.

b.  The main concern was the venue’s location and relationship to Lakeside Road residential area, the flats above the premises, and the old people’s home opposite. At least one of the residents of the old people’s home had told him of concerns about potential noise particularly from the outside seating area, as they were opposite the premises and had single glazed windows. There was also concern in the wider area.

c.  In the early stages of the application, it had been stressed that this would be a high end coffee bar, but there was concern that the operation involved supply of food and alcohol, and it was seen locally as a sports bar not vastly different to a pub. The application sought supply of alcohol to 21:30 each evening. The street trading licence permitted 20 chairs and six tables. So there could be around 20 people outside drinking. This could be a problem.

d.  The proposed conditions relating to use of the outside area did not entirely address the concerns. That ‘moveable’ external seating shall be removed ‘where practicable’ by 20:00 did not seem to be an effective or enforceable condition.

e.  The application would allow alcohol to be consumed outside every evening. There was a contrast between the professed operating hours described by Mr Hilmi and the licensed hours applied for. Residents would be happier if the hours matched the earlier times.

f.  The applicant may have good intentions, but there was a potential in the future for a pub on site operating to the limits of the licence. Residents would like to see any licence being in line with the professed operating schedule. Noise, litter and behaviour concerns would be reduced if the hours were reduced.

 

3.    Mr Younger responded to questions as follows:

a.  Councillor Levy asked about evidence behind concerns that the business would be a sports bar. It was acknowledged that the business had not yet begun operating, but though it was advertised as a coffee bar, the licence sought seemed unlike other coffee bar operations particularly around films, live music and supply of alcohol. It was a concern that once such a licence was granted it would be permanent and operations could change as a result of business pressure or changed ownership in the future and residents would have no ability to oppose.

b.  In response to further queries from Councillor Levy, it was suggested that late night private art showings could be dealt with via temporary event notices.

c.  Councillor Levy queried whether interested parties believed that the applicant had taken all appropriate and reasonable steps to promote the four licensing objectives. Mr Younger highlighted the contrast between the detailed conditions covering noise from inside the property, but that no conditions covered noise generated outside. With potentially 20 / 25 customers outside, there was no limit on the noise they could generate.

d.  Councillor Delman asked about the distance and relationship to the residential home opposite and addresses in Lakeside Road and whether it would be reasonable to assert they would be affected by noise nuisance. Mr Younger confirmed that the nearest house was no.3 Lakeside Road. He reported that a lady from the care home came out and said she lived immediately opposite and her windows were single glazed and had been affected in the past by noise problems, street drinking and drug dealing in the area, and she was concerned that noise would cause her a problem.

e.  Councillor Bond raised that Aldermans Hill was a busy, noisy road. Mr Younger advised that the concern was that noise would be generated into the turning into Lakeside Road. On the Aldermans Hill side there would not be a disturbance issue, but around the corner was a quiet area.

f.  Councillor Levy raised that some issues mentioned could already exist from other licensed premises and questioned why a new applicant should be punitively prevented from obtaining a licence, and why this venue would attract those who would want to drink and be rowdy. It was responded that with 20 / 25 people outside there could not be a guarantee the premises would not be noisy, and that others would not be attracted to gather there. People gathering in the area would be an issue if furniture was left out overnight: if there was a bench on the highway people would sit there and drink.

g.  In response to Councillor Levy’s further queries, Mr Younger acknowledged he could not give hard evidence and that Condition 13 specified that no patrons remain in the external seating area after 20:00, but he believed that if a bench was left out that people (not customers of the coffee bar) would use it. Some of the furniture appeared to be unmoveable. Therefore after hours it would be a magnet for late night drinkers. The conditions to prevent problems arising did not appear effective or enforceable. It would also seem to be a sensible and safe solution if licensed hours were brought in line with the operating schedule.

 

4.    The statement of Mr and Mrs Hilmi, directors of Starfish & Coffee House Limited, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  It was understood that outdoor furniture should be brought in at 20:00 and this was abided to. There would be no fixed seating outside the venue overnight. The vision for the outdoor seating area was that customers would be able to sit outside during the day and enjoy a brunch in front of the park. Its use was not envisaged at night time. Customers would only go outside in the evening to smoke. Comments of residents and the Police had been taken on board and furniture was brought in after 20:00. It was agreed that when people went outside after 20:00, drinks must be left inside. The coffee house wished to host live jazz and an art gallery to show beautiful work for free to the public.

b.  Mr Hilmi had lived in this area all his life. He appreciated the local residents’ concerns and that is why he scheduled a meeting to get to know the objectors. He had made himself available to answer any questions, and he had generally been met with positivity in the area. He had tried to address all concerns.

c.  It was confirmed that the usual operating hours would be until 16:30 Monday to Friday, 18:00 on Saturday, and 16:00 on Sunday, but they wished to hold occasional art events until around 21:00, including serving alcohol and therefore applied for an overall limit for opening hours.

d.  It was preferable to have a licence as sought, rather than applying for a temporary event notice (TEN) on each art event occasion. Each application for a TEN was subject to a £21 fee and required ten days’ notice, which was not considered fair and would not give them the necessary freedom to arrange art events.

e.  The concerns of residents had been taken into account in that an application had not been made for opening hours later than 22:00.

f.  It was aimed to organise exhibitions and bring art culture to the area, and to try to do something good.

g.  Their adjoining neighbours had no concerns. Residents in the flats upstairs were quite excited about the business. The freeholder was on board.

h.  Mr Hilmi met with the manager of the care home and was told that no-one had concerns. In talking to care home residents he received supportive comments.

i.  Mr Hilmi tried to do everything in his power to approach local residents including writing letters about what was proposed. He was disappointed when he had taken time and effort to set up a local meeting, including ward councillors, that only one objector out of 12 attended. He had tried his best to give reassurance to everyone.

 

5.    Mr and Mrs Hilmi responded to questions as follows:

a.  In response to the Chair’s queries regarding Condition 13, the applicants were agreeable to an amendment to the wording so that all external seating should be removed by 20:00.

b.  Clarification was requested regarding on and off sales and the relevant premises plan. It was confirmed that in an email to the Licensing Authority, Mr Hilmi had confirmed that the application should state on and off sales, and the correct plan was included in the agenda pack.

c.  In response to Councillor Levy’s query, it was clarified that the event on 17/10/15 for which a TEN had been granted had not gone ahead because the venue was not ready.

d.  In response to Councillor Levy’s further queries about the number of arts events envisaged, it was stated that there may be around one or two per month, but this was a new venture and it was not known how it was going to take off. It was more economical to make a full licence application than an application for a TEN for each individual event.

e.  In response to queries about closing times on other days, it was advised the coffee bar would always close at the times given, and at the latest 18:00 on Saturdays.

f.  It was confirmed that alcohol would be served ancillary to art events, but would also be available at other times including Sunday afternoons. The food which was planned at the venue included soups, sandwiches, salads, bruschetta, and fresh bread.

g.  Reassurance was given that the venue would not be a seven night a week late night business.

 

6.    The summary statement of Mr Younger, confirming the interested parties’ position was still that the part of the licence relating to alcohol and use of the outside area should be brought into line with the stated operating intentions. A set of clearly agreed conditions would ensure that Mr and Mrs Hilmi could work to the benefit of the neighbourhood.

 

7.    The summary statement of Mr and Mrs Hilmi that they would like to have the opportunity to give customers the chance to have a glass of wine at the venue if they wished, during the licence hours sought.

 

8.    The closing statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer:

a.  Having heard all of the representations, the sub-committee must take such steps as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

b.  Members’ attention was drawn to relevant law and guidance, with emphasis on Home Office guidance at sections 10.13 and 13.18, and the Council’s Licensing Policy sections 8.3 and 8.4.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1.         In accordance with the principles of Section 100(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

The Panel retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

2.      The Chair made the following statement:

 

Having read all the written correspondence and considered all written and oral submissions, the Licensing Sub Committee was fully satisfied that the applicant had taken all appropriate steps to properly promote the licensing objectives, and was able to resolve that the application be granted in full.

 

In so doing, the Licensing Sub-Committee did listen attentively to the points made at the hearing by Mr Younger, both in his own right and on behalf of other interested parties who had voiced objections, but were not persuaded by the arguments advanced because they were largely based on conjecture rather than any firm evidence.

 

The one exception related to the situation regarding the removal of the external seating, where in the originally proposed condition 13, there was some ambiguity as to the word ‘moveable’. This matter was resolved during the hearing at which the applicant agreed to accede to Mr Younger’s request, this agreement captured by mild revision to the wording of the condition to remove the ambiguity and bring clarity to the situation.

 

The Chair suggested that the Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association may like to hold one of their meetings in the venue once it had opened, to show goodwill.

 

3.      The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved that the application be granted in full.

 

          Conditions (in accordance with Annex 05 to the report)

 

(i)            Conditions 1 to 14, which are not disputed,

(ii)          AND Condition 13 is amended to read ‘Supervisory staff shall ensure that no patrons remain in the external seating area after 20:00, except to enter and leave the premises. All external seating shall be removed by 20:00 hours’.