Agenda item

To consider the attached report for a new premises licence.

The three Councillors that presided over this application were Councillors S Neville (Chairman), J Jennings and A Lion.

 

The Chairman introduced the Members and Officers present and outlined the procedure that would be followed for the determination of the application.

 

In attendance were the applicant’s representative Mr Dadds and the objectors: Amy Regueiro, Alano Regueiro, Stuart Richardson, Roy Waitt, Deborah Shulton, Keith Ashworth and Nick Darrant.

 

(a)        Application before the Sub-Committee

 

The Licensing Officer, H Ibrahim, informed the Sub-Committee that an application had been made by Mr Umut Demir for a new premises licence at 179-181 High Road, Loughton, IG10 4LF, the application was for a new restaurant, lounge and bar for the following licensable activities:

 

Supply of Alcohol (both on and off the premises)

Monday to Thursday                    10:00 to 00:00

Friday and Saturday                    10:00 to 00:30

Sunday                                         10:00 to 00:00

 

Provision of Recorded Music

Monday to Thursday                    10:00 to 00:00

Friday and Saturday                    10:00 to 00:30

Sunday                                         10:00 to 00:00

 

Provision of Late Night Refreshment

Monday to Thursday                    23:00 to 00:00

Friday and Saturday                    23:00 to 00:30

Sunday                                         23:00 to 00:00

 

Hours Premises would be open to the public

Monday to Thursday                    10:00 to 00:30

Friday and Saturday                    10:00 to 01:00

Sunday                                         10:00 to 00:30

 

The application was received by the Licensing Authority on the on the 24 December 2020.

All Responsible Authorities had been notified and it had been properly advertised at the premises and in a local newspaper, all residences and businesses within a 150 metre radius of the premises were individually consulted.Mr Chris Smith, Environmental Enforcement Officer, had agreed conditions with the applicant.

The authority had received representations from Loughton Town Council 14 local residents. The objections related to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

(b)       Presentation of the Application

 

Mr Dadds summarised that the licensable activities as the supply of alcohol, recorded music and late night refreshments. He stated that this whilst each application must be judged on its own merits this was already an existing licensed premise and the difference between the license and application was an additional 30 minutes. He detailed that the Police and statutory authorities had raised no objections in relation to crime and disorder, conditions had been agreed with Environmental Health in relation to noise and the Licensing Authority had raised no objections.

In relation to the concerns raised the restaurant would primality sell food, the entrance and egress to the premises would only be at front of the premises. Customers could park in the two public car parks opposite the premises. The premises was predominantly seated.  There had been a £700,000 investment and this would provide job opportunities for up to 30 staff.

He suggested that there would not be any public nuisance from the licensable activities inside the premises or from the outdoor space. The premises were in a predominately commercial road. The conditions offered in the application were appropriate and would promote the licensing objectives.

 

 

(c)        Questions for the Applicant from the Sub-Committee

 

The Sub Committee asked for clarity on the premises, the use of the outdoor space and how that would impact on the neighbours.

Mr Dadds advised that this was primarily a restaurant lounge bar, which was seated. There would be a small area upstairs for pre or post dinner drinks although this was predominately a food based business. The music would be recorded music, at background level so that conversation could be held over dinner, there would be no live music or dancing.  The outside space would be used for eating and drinking at waited tables, with a small areas for smoking, but there were no licensable activities. There would be no music in the garden, the doors would open to let people into and out of the garden. There would be directional barriers to reflect any noise from conversation, the lighting would be softened and reflected into the garden. This was not a beer garden, but a relaxing calm environment.  He suggested that customers in the garden would not cause a public nuisance and reminded the Sub-Committee that the professional expert from Environmental Health had no objections to the application.

 

 

(d)       Questions for the Applicant from the Objector

 

Ms Alano challenged the number of neighbours mentioned in Mr Dadds’ presentation and asked: where the staff would park; how the rubbish and noise associated with rubbish and glass would be dealt with; for a comparison with closing hours and size of the previous restaurant; and details of the noise barrier.

 

Mr Dadds described the site with one adjacent neighbour, a hedgerow and commercial premise to the rear and a commercial premise to the other side. He stated that he did not think would create a public nuisance, but screening would be put up to direct any sound. There would only be consumption in the outdoor space and no music. There would be not be more than three cars parked. There would be an appropriate contractor for waste collection and restrictions on the disposal of waste and bottles to avoid disturbance. This restaurant would be similar in size to the previous restaurant who also used the garden. The previous license was until midnight and only contained mandatory conditions. The noise barrier would be fence height with a curved canopy to deflect any noise and would be erected in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Authority.

 

Mr Darrant asked what steps would be taken to reduce the impact of large number of young adults drinking in the garden. Mr Dadds suggested that there would be minimal impact from the use of the back garden this was predominately a restaurant lounge bar, most people would be dinning, seated and supervised. This was a food led business with no vertical drinking areas.

 

Mr Ashworth asked if this would be a shisha bar and questioned if opening a restaurant until 1:00am was conducive to rowdiness. Mr Dadds advised this would not be a shisha bar it was a restaurant/lounge/bar. Food would be served until 12:30 and the restaurant closed by 1:00am, he advised that people gradually dispersed from a restaurant.

 

Mr Richarsdon detailed that due to Covid people were being encouraged to be outside, He asked how this would impact on the outside space. Mr Dadds agreed that the regulations had encouraged people to use outside space, but that social distancing was still applicable. The outside space at these premises would be waited service for food and drink at tables.

 

Mr Waitt asked what would to prevent the premises license being passed on to someone who would change what they do? Mr Dadds advised that any future owner that wanted to change license would either need to make an application to vary the license or apply for a new license.

 

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would base its decision on what was known at the time view. If the licence was granted and there was ever any rowdiness or social disorder a license could be reviewed at that time.

 

 

(e)        Presentation from the Objector

 

Mr Ashworth objection related to the flow of people that went through Brook Path at night and late night Anti-Social Behaviour, he felt this application would encourage late night and outside drinking.

 

The Legal Advisor, R Ferreira, reminded everyone that in relation to an objection, evidence must be from the specific premises and this could not be speculation. If there were future incidents these could be reported to the relevant bodies and the license could be reviewed. It was also noted that each case must be based on its own merits.

 

Ms Alano described the proximity of her property to the premises. She advised the Sub Committee that there was an apartment building directly overlooking the outdoor area and other neighbours in the vicinity and suggested that this was a residential area.  She detailed that sound carried around the area, which could be heard through the triple glazed windows and that reverberations were felt due to the underground systems that connected the properties. Ms Alano stated that the proposed late night hours made this an application for a club like premises, and concluded that her objection was in relation to the length of hours and music.

 

Roy Wait objected to the lateness of the license and suggested a limited license that could be reviewed.

 

Mr Richardson stated that as it could not be proved that there was a problem and asked if the license could be time limited and reviewed 6 months. He suggested that an earlier closing time for the back doors would alleviate a noise problem.

 

Mr Darrant stated that this was a residential not a commercial road and suggested that at night there would be drinking in the outdoor space and sound would travel through the air and create a nuisance. This was a restaurant bar with music, as you could drink without food this would be magnet for late night beery culture which would create fear in the community. He acknowledged that this was speculation bur stated that Mr Dadds assertions were also conjecture.

 

Mr Mercer stated that he was pleased about the investment in the High St, he hoped that there would be no disturbance of the performances at Lopping Hall, and he would look forward to a positive relationship with the owner.

 

 

(g)       Questions for the Objector from the Members

 

The were no questions for the objectors from the members .

 

(h)       Questions for the Objector from the Applicant

 

 

The were no questions for the objectors from the applicant

 

(i) Closing Statement from the Applicant

 

Mr Dadds advised the Sub Committee that the structure of buildings had an effect on sound. This application was for a predominately seated restaurant, historic complaints related to the passageway were not relevant to this application. Residents would not be affected the premises and garden. The garden area would be seated only, with no music outside and acoustic reflection, anyone using the garden would not create a nuisance. There had been no objections from other residents in the flats above the shops and the responsible authorities had considered the application and raised no objections. If a license was granted and in the future there was evidence that the licensing objectives had been undermined, the license could be reviewed.

 

(j)         Consideration of the Application by the Sub-Committee

 

The Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would go into private session to consider the application.

 

During their deliberations in private session the Sub-Committee received the following advice: speculation was not good enough; conditions imposed must be appropriate, be capable of being enforceable and must not undermine the licensing objectives; that each case must be determined on its own merits; and the Committee was entitled to find its own facts, determine what weight should be given to the evidence before it, and to reach its own conclusions. The Committee, when finding facts, must apply the “civil test” of “the balance of probabilities”. While the Committee was not, itself, a court. It had to apply the same test for evidence as a civil court.

 

The Committee noted all of the submissions and representations, both oral and written made in relation to this application

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application for a premises licence in respect of: ‘New Restaurant, Lounge and Bar, 179-181 High Road, Loughton, Essex IG10 4LF, be granted subject to:

 

a)    The conditions submitted by the applicant on 24 December 2020 and dated 23 December 2020,

 

b)    The following conditions agreed with Environmental Health.

                 i.          The premises shall be adequately insulated, or the sound level adjusted, to ensure that noise from music (live or recorded) or amplified was inaudible inside any adjoining premises.

                ii.          An appropriate automatic noise control device must be used for any amplified sound. The device should be set so that the volume of amplified sound emanating from the premises does not cause a public nuisance, The Premises Supervisor could ensure that any amplified from the premises does not cause a public nuisance by ensuring that amplified sound was inaudible at the boundary of any properties where occupiers were likely to be sensitive to noise.

               iii.          The Premises Supervisor (or representative) shall monitor the volume of music emanating from the premises and adjust the volume to ensure that any amplified sound or other music from the licensed premises does not causa a public nuisance by ensuring that the music was inaudible at the boundary of any properties where the occupiers were likely to be sensitive to noise.

 

c)    the mandatory conditions contained in Sections 19 -21 of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The Sub-Committee considered were reasonable and proportionate and would not undermine the licensing objectives.

 

The applicant was reminded of their right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of date of the written notification of this decision.