Agenda item
Application for Variation of a Premises Licence for Kilikya, Unit C4 Ivory House, St Katharines Docks, London E1W 1AT
Minutes:
At the start of the hearing, a request was made by Mr Ziya Merton, Licensing Agent representing Mr Ali Berka, Applicant, for an adjournment. Mr Merton informed the Sub-Committee that the Applicant was not present at the meeting due to being in poor health abroad. However it was established at the meeting that the Applicant’s Licensing Agent had full instructions to represent on the Applicant’s behalf, and was content to proceed, if the Sub-Committee decided not to adjourn.
Members retired in private for a short while and then reconvened. The Chair announced that the request for adjournment had been refused, the Sub-Committee took into consideration the public interest, including the cost impact of an adjournment on all participants, and the fact that Mr Merton had full instructions and could proceed with full instructions to represent the Applicant.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Kilikya, Unit C4 Ivory House, St Katharine’s Docks, London E1W 1AT. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of individual local residents and a residents’ association.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Ziya Merton explained that the application was for off sales of alcohol only, and the hours were only for the licensable hours the premises already had. He said that he appreciates that the premises were a lively, but was a unique bar offering food and drinks. Mr Merton presented that the Applicant would ensure no idling of delivery vehicles, and any alcohol sold being delivered to customers would be sold in sealed containers and only sold ancillary to a meal.
Mr Merton explained that there was a full CCTV camera system in operation. He presented that the Applicant would be happy to consider any conditions which the Committee felt necessary and proportionate. It was noted that there were other premises in the area which could be the cause of the noise nuisance and crime and disorder referred to in residents’ written representations. It was noted that the premises had been closed since 6th January 2021, as the applicant was out of the country and did not want the premises open without him being present.
He explained that the introduction of off sales would attract and allow flexibility, making the business more sustainable. In terms of litter, staff would be on duty to patrol the immediate vicinity of the premises on a regular basis, and had 24 hour security to monitor any problems. He said that alcohol would only be sold with a meal, and would help customers avoid the inconvenience of purchasing food from one place and alcohol from another, which also disadvantages the business as customers prefer to get their food and drink from the same place, which in turn decreases the number of deliveries that would be made as a whole in relation to delivered orders.
In conclusion, Mr Merton concluded that no increase in hours was sought, existing conditions on the licence were sufficient, and the Applicant was happy to accept any further conditions.
Members then heard from Mr Leo Charalambides, Legal Representative, on behalf of the residents’ association, the Friends of St Katherine’s Dock. He explained that he represented 350 residents as part of the residents’ association, and was instructed to put forward their concerns raised in relation to this application. He said the plan submitted with the application was misleading on page 51 of the agenda, as it was an old plan and the premises layout had changed. He said customers congregate in the archway, are noisy and litter in the dock. He said there were 18 licensed premises in the area, and there was a huge amount of littering, which with the increase in the takeaway delivery industry, it has exacerbated the area.
Mr Charalambides presented that delivery drivers congregate, smoke, and bring their motorbikes and bicycles inside the courtyard, causing congestion and adverse impact on the area. It was also presented that, therefore, another set of premises being licensed to deliver as part of its licensed alcohol activities is not suitable for the area which already experiences high levels of public nuisance as a result of delivery drivers and vehicles. It was represented that the Applicant had not sought to address the impact of more delivery drivers and vehicles in the area, and the effects it would have on the pedestrian walkways. Mr Charalambides said that the area had become a delivery hub, and there needed to be a balance of residential community and business interests. He urged Members to reject the application.
Members also heard from Heather Corben and Michael Wilshire, individual local residents who expressed similar concerns to the residents’ association, relating to the application, namely concerns over narrow walkways always being congested with delivery drivers, so that residents were unable to walk past with family and children; noise emanating causing noise nuisance; late night crowds congregating causing disturbance to residents. Ms Corben and Mr Wilshire also presented that there were 18 other premises, and granting a further licence would set a precedent for other premises to apply and that the applicant gave them no assurances in how this would not negatively impact on the area.
In response to questions the following was noted;
1. That the plan of the premises supplied by the Applicant was inaccurate as it did not reflect the current layout of the premises.
2. Litter had been associated with the premises, as beer pumps had been brought outside the premises, and the premises had served drinks in florescent coloured cups, so that residents were then able to link the premises the customers who had congregated outside and committed littering with those coloured cups.
3. That the premises was running as a bar during October/November and December 2020.
4. That the disturbance mentioned in representations against the application had not previously been reported to the Council, as residents had maintained a degree of tolerance before being aware of the application, which would lead to increased footfall associated with the licensable activity of alcohol sales in relation to the Applicant’s business premises.
5. It was acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative that the plan may be out of date, but he pointed out there was no requirement to submit a plan of the premises for a variation application. Nonetheless, it was also noted that the Applicant had chosen to submit a plan, which thus formed part of the application.
6. For deliveries, alcohol would only be sold in sealed containers and ancillary to a meal.
7. That there had been no objection from responsible authorities, and no increase in hours was sought by the Applicant.
Concluding remarks were made by all parties.
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 heard oral representations at the meeting made by the Applicant’s Licensing Agent, the Legal Representative representing the Residents’ Association and other local residents representing themselves objecting to the application, with particular regard to the prevention of public nuisance.
At the start of hearing this application, the Sub-Committee decided upon a request for adjournment made by the Applicant’s Agent, who informed the Sub-Committee that the Applicant was not present at the meeting due to being in poor health abroad., However it was established at the meeting that the Applicant’s Licensing Agent had full instructions to represent on the Applicant’s behalf, and was content to proceed, if the Sub-Committee decided not to adjourn. In refusing the request for an adjournment, the Sub-Committee took into consideration the public interest, including the cost impact of an adjournment on all participants.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations on behalf of the Residents’ Association and from other residents asserting that a grant of the application would adversely impact the area, in terms of noise nuisance and other public nuisance, especially litter, increase in delivery drivers and delivery vehicles and congestion in the narrow walkway which from the residents perspective was not designed to accommodate such large footfall of people. The Sub-Committee considered residents’ representations that off sales would increase more delivery orders. The Sub-Committee considered representations on behalf of residents that the premises plan on page 51 of the agenda, submitted by the Applicant was incorrect and did not reflect the correct layout of the Applicant’s premises and operation of the business.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant’s Representative sufficiently clarified in response to questions, to what extent, if at all, the plan submitted with the application was uptodate and accurate with regard to the layout and operation of the Applicant’s premises. The Sub-Committee was also not satisfied that the Applicant’s Representative sufficiently clarified in response to questions, what measures would be in place to allay the concerns raised by residents regarding public nuisance.
The Sub Committee were therefore not satisfied that the application, if granted, would not uphold the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of public nuisance.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for Kilikya, Unit C4 Ivory House, St Katherines Dock, London E1W 1AT be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: