Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for a Premises Licence for (Duck and Dry) 105C Commercial Street, Old Spitalfields Market, London E1 6BG
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Samantha Neale, Licensing Officer, presented the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Duck and Dry, 105C Commercial Street, Old Spitalfields Market, London E1 6BG. It was noted that representations had been made by local residents.
Ms Lisa Gilligan, the Applicants Legal representative, explained that the premises is a hairdressing salon catering for customers seeking a haircut, hairstyling or beauty treatment. A sale of alcohol licence had been applied for in order to give customers a unique experience of enjoying a glass of wine whilst having their beauty treatment. Ms Gilligan stated the hours applied for were within the Council’s legal framework hours and therefore would not add to the cumulative impact in the area by having a negative effect on the licencing objectives. Ms Gilligan referred members to the conditions outlined on page 49 of the agenda and said careful consideration had been given to limit the sale of alcohol to patrons only and to restrict the licensable activity to the company responsible for the franchise. Ms Gilligan referred to the examples of exceptional circumstances listed at paragraph 19.8 on page 136 of the agenda and said her clients business satisfied this criteria as it is a small non-alcohol led premises applying for a licence within the framework hours.
In addressing the individual objections, Ms Gilligan clarified that toilet facilities were available within the premises and patrons would have access to these. With the consent of the objectors, she shared photographs of the reception and bar area and reiterated that the business is primarily a hairdressers and not alcohol led.
Members then heard from Mr Ben Williams, local resident, and Mr Jonathan Stebbins, President of the Spitalfields Market Residents Association. Mr Williams said he had concerns at how normal everyday activities, such as having a haircut, were associated with alcohol. He said the promotional material on the company’s website suggested that bottles of Prosecco were available for sale. Mr Stebbins added that the proliferation of alcohol led businesses and the associated public nuisance was the reason why the cumulative impact zone had been introduced in the area. Mr Stebbins said that whilst residents welcomed new businesses, they had to be mindful of the area being a mixed commercial and residential area. The buildings are not sound insulated and noise travels. Mr Stebbins relayed the concerns of Ms Pamela Mossman, an objector, regarding the company website which states that group and party bookings were welcomed. Both objectors stated that the granting of licences to businesses in the area on an incremental basis meant the residents suffered. Mr Stebbins was concerned that the association of alcohol to everyday activities would set a precedent for other businesses, similar in nature, to follow suit.
In response to questions from members, the following was noted:
· The capacity of the premises is ten clients at any one time in the main hairdressing salon upstairs and six clients in the nail bar downstairs in the basement.
· The premises has its own toilet facilities for client use.
· The sale of alcohol would only be to clients having a haircut, hairstyling or beauty treatment and would not be offered to friends of the client.
· Group bookings are usually on a Saturday morning for bridal parties, whereas the remainder of the week, clients are mainly individual professionals. The standard maximum time a client spends in the premises is 45 minutes to an hour. A glass of prosecco is offered and not a bottle.
· The website relates to four franchises and is not specific to this premises. The premises is small and therefore will not be encouraging large groups of people to attend. The last appointment will be approximately 6:00 or 6:30pm, with the business closing at 8:00pm.
· Scissors will be stored away from customers. Hair dye will not be used at the premises.
· The Applicant believed that it was unlikely that noise disturbance would be caused by clients laughing and joking whilst receiving treatment as most clients will not know each other.
· The premises had operated on two weekends using temporary event notices (TENs) and it had not received any noise complaints from the flats above.
· The Applicant was willing to implement a Challenge 25 policy.
· The Applicant was willing to accept a condition that no glasses or alcohol would be allowed to leave the premises.
· The Applicant was willing to place signs in the premises requesting customers to respect local residents and minimise noise.
In summing up, Ms Gilligan requested members to keep perspective in relation to her client’s application and said the licence applied for would not bring the licensing objectives into disrepute. Her client had operated on the weekend with TENs and had demonstrated it was a responsible business. It was willing to accept the conditions suggested by the Sub-Committee.
Mr Stebbins for the objectors, concurred that perspective was necessary and requested members to take into consideration the mixed use of the area as it is both commercial and residential in nature. He said the incremental increase in the number of premises selling alcohol, especially the normalisation of purchasing and consuming alcohol for everyday activities, was worrisome and the more alcohol available inevitably resulted in more noise pollution.
Members adjourned the meeting at 20:54 hours for deliberations and reconvened at 21:17 hours.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licensing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and the oral representations from the Applicant’s Legal Representative and local residents, with particular regard to public nuisance and protection of children from harm.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and therefore, there is a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons objecting to the application, the premises licence application will be refused.
The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if it can demonstrate that the granting of the application will not negatively add to the cumulative impact already experienced in the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the residents regarding the impact of the premises on the CIZ and their concerns relating to the existing levels of public nuisance, in particular noise amplification and disturbance. The Sub-Committee noted their concerns regarding the possibility of alcohol consumption leading to anti-social behaviour.
The Sub-Committee noted that the hours applied for were within the framework hours, with the sale of alcohol ceasing at 20:00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 18:00 hours on Sunday. The Applicant’s legal representative stated that specific conditions had been proposed, as per page 49 of the agenda, which would mitigate the risks to the licensing objectives. Furthermore, the Applicant’s representative submitted that the application rebutted the CIZ presumption as exceptional circumstances were present. The Applicant’s representative referred to the examples of possible exceptional circumstances given in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy on page 136 of the agenda. It was noted that the present application involved a small premises with a capacity of less than fifty persons, it was not an alcohol led business and it would operate within the framework hours.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances and the premises would not negatively add to the cumulative impact in the area. The Sub-Committee concluded that the licensing objectives will be promoted and the conditions will adequately mitigate the risk of public nuisance and harm to children.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Duck and Dry, 105C Commercial Street, Old Spitalfields Market, London E1 6BG be GRANTED with conditions.
Sale of Alcohol (on sales only)
Monday to Saturday 10:00 – 20:00 hours
Sunday 10:00 – 18:00 hours
Hours Premises Open to the Public
Monday to Saturday 08:00 – 20:00 hours
Sunday 10:00 – 18:00 hours
Conditions
1.1 Alcohol may only be sold to and consumed by patrons receiving haircuts, hairstyling and beauty treatment.
1.2 There shall be no self-service of alcohol by patrons.
1.3 There shall be no off sales of alcohol.
1.4 Licensable activities authorised by this premises licence can only be carried out by Blooming Beautiful Limited.
1.5 The Premises shall ensure that no drinks are taken outside of the premises.
1.6 There shall be no vertical drinking.
1.7 There shall be no outdoor seating.
1.8 A sign shall be placed in the premises asking customers to respect local residents and minimise noise.
1.9 The Premises is to implement and maintain a Challenge 25 policy.
Supporting documents: