Agenda item
Application for Variation of a Premises Licence for Royal Oak, 73 Columbia Road, London E2 7RG
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Royal Oak, 73 Columbia Road, London E2 7RG. The application was to licence an additional small and private dining room on the 1st floor for licensable activities within the hours of the current licence. It was noted that objections had been received by local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Gareth Hughes, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicants, Mr Neil Martin and Ms Naomi Rodgers, explained that the premises was a very well and established community pub which had been trading for the past 200 years. He explained that the pub was a destination venue due to its food and ambience and character of the area.
He referred Members to page 58 of the agenda, the plan of the area that they were seeking a licence for. It was noted that the small room which was currently used as a storage and staff room was attached to the main dining room which was a licenced area.
Mr Hughes highlighted the fact that this was not a review of the current licence but a small variation to the licence, that there was no proposal to change the hours or increase clientele but merely to increase an area and space for licensable activities. He explained that it was an extension to the current dining room. Mr Hughes stated that they wish to offer voluntary conditions for the small dining room such as no vertical drinking and alcohol only ancillary to a table meal. These conditions were offered in order to ensure that the first floor dining room would not become a bar area in the future, and would remain a dining room with alcohol served ancillary to table meals. They also proposed to have no regulated entertainment and proposed that the doors and windows would be kept permanently closed whilst the premises was in operation.
It was noted that there had been no objections from Responsible Authorities and that there was no indication that any crime and disorder in the area was associated with the premises. Mr. Hughes said that due to crowds congregating on the street, they would ensure that an SIA accredited door supervisor would be on duty on Fridays and Saturdays from 9.30pm until closing time to ensure that no drinks were allowed outside the premises after this time.
Members then heard from Ms Lucy Rodgers, a local resident, who stated that she had lived there for the past 20 years, and lived directly next door to the premises. She explained that there were thicker walls on the ground floor of the premises, but the first floor of the premises had thinner walls which caused noise leakage.She explained that the proposed dining area was 3 metres from her kitchen, which would mean noise would travel and cause noise disturbance. She further explained that the kitchen was the only area in her house that was quiet and with this proposal, there would be nowhere in the house where she would get the quiet enjoyment of her house.
She explained that the wooden door on the premises which had access to the roof, was opposite her kitchen, was thin and had glass windows making it easier for noise to escape. She suggested that if the application was to be granted, no customers should be allowed to use the roof area, that a noise acoustic report is done, the door leading to the roof is replaced with a thicker door, the room is sound proofed, there be no regulated entertainment and the licensable activities to end earlier than the hours applied for.
Members then heard from Ms Kristen Perers, Mr Josh Cook and Mr William Taylor, local residents who expressed similar concerns of noise nuisance, customers spilling onto the streets, drinking and causing noise and public nuisance outside their home. Ms Perers said that she had tried to work with management but this had not been consistent, she also expressed concerns of the increase in clientele due to the additional space that would be available if the application was granted. She explained that management were currently unable to control the number of customers frequenting the pub and with this additional area it would cause a negative impact on an area the currently experiences public nuisance.
In response to questions, the following was noted:
- That ways to control noise nuisance from the premises would be to permanently keep locked, the door and windows through which the roof could otherwise be accessed from the first floor dining room.
- That there would be an increase from, 42 covers to 60 covers served in the first floor dining room.
- That there would be no regulated entertainment in the first floor dining room.
- That the Applicant was happy to obtain a acoustics report
- That there was no party wall between the first floor dining room and Ms Rodgers’ kitchen.
- That the capacity of the 1st floor was for 60 people.
- That one SIA accredited door supervisor would be on duty from 9.30pm until close of business on Fridays and Saturdays.
- That the Applicants envisage one sitting in the first floor dining room, and they were looking for quality, not quantity in terms of clientele for the first floor dining room.
- That the complaints received last year were from a combination of all three premises including the restaurants in Ezra Street and the pub.
- That there were currently no conditions specific to the outside of the premises.
- That there would be two members of staff on duty in the first floor dining area and there would be one runner between both the floors.
- That the premises had a capacity of 150 people downstairs and 60 people upstairs.
- That the 1st floor dining area is closed on Sundays.
Members adjourned the meeting at 7.40pm to deliberate and reconvened at 8.20pm.
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;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation at the meeting from both the Applicant’s Legal Representative and the Objectors with particular regard to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises in question were situated in a busy and mixed commercial and residential area. The Sub-Committee noted the written representations made by Objectors and also heard oral representations from Objectors at the meeting regarding the impact of the premises on the quiet enjoyment of their homes and their quality of life. The Sub-Committee also noted Objectors’ concerns relating to public nuisance, and anti-social behaviour; and noted the concerns about the likelihood of increased noise nuisance, impact upon family environment, and the likely increased numbers of clientele in the area if the application were to be granted, and thereby the likely impact on the area as a result of an additional dining space at the premises.
The Sub Committee noted the Applicant’s representation that the impact of the premises licence would not be significant and if granted, would be mitigated by the proposed conditions agreed and offered. Members acknowledged that the Applicant had explained how they would manage the activities within the premises. However, the potential increased footfall arising from any grant of the application in this instance required a particularly robust operating schedule, which should demonstrate particular measures at the premises to address the likely impact of increased clientele and potential public nuisance and noise nuisance arising there from. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting met that requirement and therefore imposed further conditions arising only because of licensable activity being allowed in the additional dining area on the 1st floor:-
- there shall be no vertical drinking in the first floor dining area,
- there shall be no regulated entertainment in the first floor dining area,
- alcohol served in the first floor dining area shall be only ancillary to a table meal,
- all licensable activities in the first floor dining area shall cease at 21:30 hours,
- the first floor dining area shall be cleared of customers by 22:00 hours,
- prominent, clear and legible notices shall be displayed at the exits of the premises asking that customers respect nearby residents and leave the premises quietly,
- the premises licence holder shall request that customers not take drinks outside the premises after 21:30 hours,
- the premises licence holder shall ensure that there is one SIA accredited door supervisor on duty from 21:30 hours until closing time,
- the door/window of the roof outside the new room will remain locked during opening hours and no patrons will be allowed onto the roof area at any time.
Members considered that these conditions would help alleviate the concerns raised, and help promote the licensing objectives, in particular the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for Royal Oak, 73 Columbia Road, London E2 7RG be Granted in part.
Licensable Area
To include the additional 1st floor dining room for licensable activities
Conditions associated to the additional 1st Floor dining room
- No Regulated Entertainment
- No vertical drinking
- Alcohol ancillary to a tabled meal only.
- All licensable activities to cease at 21:30 hours and the room to be cleared of customers at 22:00 hours.
Additional Conditions consistent with the operating schedule
- Only minimal background music will be heard from the main dining room.
- Prominent clear and legible notices to be displayed at the exits requesting the public to respect nearby residents and leave the premises and area quietly.
- Customers to be asked not to drink outside after 21:30 hours
- The door/window of the roof outside the new room will remain locked during opening hours and no patrons will be allowed onto the roof area at any time.
- One SIA accredited door supervisor to be on duty from 21:30 hours till closing time on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
Supporting documents:
- Royal Oak cover report, item 3.1 PDF 92 KB
- Royal Oak Appendices Only, item 3.1 PDF 10 MB
- Additional Docs - Resident - Royal Oak - 1_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 329 KB
- Additional Docs - Resident - Royal Oak - 2_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 5 MB