Content

RESOLVED: The Licensing
Sub-Committee, in considering this decision from the information
presented to them within the report and at the hearing today and
having regard to the promotion of the licensing objectives:
 
• 
The prevention of crime and disorder
• 
Public safety
• 
Prevention of public nuisance
• 
The protection of children from harm
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee made the following
determination: to modify the
premises licence as follows:
 
• 
Sunday to Wednesday the rear garden shall close at 22:00.
• 
Thursday to Saturday the rear garden shall close at 00:00.
• 
Condition 18 to be amended as follows:
“There shall be no glass, drinks or open
containers taken outside of the
premises at any time”.
 
• 
The capacity of the premises shall be determined on the grounds of
fire
safety and following a physical
assessment by a competent person.
• 
The Premises Licence holder to submit a Noise Management Plan
to
be submitted to the Licensing
Authority and the Environmental Protection Team to resolve noise
issues with the extractor fan, speakers
 
The Reasons for the
Decision:
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee after carefully
considering the evidence presented to them at the review hearing by
the Applicant, (the Environmental Protection Team), the Licensing
Authority, the Legal Representative who represented the Premises
Licence holder, the Premises Licence holder, and Other Person (a
local resident) who made representations in support of the premises
decided that the appropriate course of action was to modify the
conditions on the premises licence in particular relating to the
rear garden, concerns about the extractor fan and the need to test
the noise level and rear garden.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
the Environmental Protection Team has applied for a review seeking
to revoke the premises licence for the Basement And Ground Floor
54-56 Scrutton Street.
 
The Sub-committee heard representations from
the Environmental Protection Officer that the review on the grounds
of prevention of public nuisance was for the period 19 September
2021 - 22 March 2023.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
there were 36 official complaints received from local residents
over an 18month period on an ongoing basis without resolution, and
for that reason the Environmental Protection Team were seeking to
revoke the premises licence.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
the Premises Licence holder has had a premises licence since 12th
June 2018. Subsequently the Premises Licence holder applied to vary
the premises licence in October 2021 to extend the terminal hours
for all licensable activities on Thursday to Saturday. The
Licensing Sub-Committee heard this variation application on 11th
January 2022.
 
The Sub-committee took into account local
residents’ representations in support of the review
application.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
following complaints received by the Environmental Protection
Team:
 
• 
25.03.23 at 23:11 hours - Loud amplified music
• 
26.3.23 from 00:08 to 00:15 hours - Loud amplified music,
• 
21.07.22 The Environmental Protection Team visited following
complaints about music from the garden at 23:08 then at 23:36 hours
when the premises were closed.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
following visits carried out by the Environmental Protection
Team:
 
I. 
Visit in March 2023, a customer brought their own sound system in
and played it,and since then it has
never happened again.
 
II. 
On 11 May 2023, was a proactive visit found in a residential
premises and heard what was a statutory nuisance.
 
III. 
Noise nuisance witnessed on 11th May 2023 at 20:55 Noise Abatement
notices have been issued against the premises.
 
IV. 
A local resident for over eight months stated there have been no
disturbances in the area and it is quite noisy and a busy area.
 
V. 
 A local resident’s bedroom is
above the garden and has no issues from the premises and no
complaints about noise.
 
The Premises Licence holder’s legal
representative contended that they were to visits from
Environmental Protection regarding anonymous complaints, which they
have not seen and have not been fully investigated
 
The Sub-committee noted that the last
complaint was in April 2023, and premises have a condition that
restricts them to only playing background music.
 
The Sub-committee took into account that
Environmental Protection Officer
did go to the front of the restaurant and
heard the extractor fan noise.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
there was extractor fan noise from 18 May 2023. It was noted that
since then a further nine complaints were received at the end of
June 2023, relating to extractor fan noise. The Premises licence
holder was notified about these complaints.
 
The Sub-committee noted that on 11 May 2023
noise nuisance was witnessed prior to that there were no complaints
about the extractor fan since 2018.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
the local resident confirmed the
extractor fan could be heard, however, the
local resident did not feel it affected them.
 
The legal advisor for the Premises licence
holder contended that there were no
issues prior to May 2023. There was a possible
issue with the hardware which can cause disturbance to residents
above the premises.
 
The Sub-committee noted that the Environmental
Protection Officer made
representations that complaints were made
during the Covid 19 pandemic
restrictions from residential premises.
 
The Sub-committee took into account that the
Environmental Protection Officer
heard the extractor system making a humming
noise which was intrusive, and the Premises licence holder did not
contact the Environmental Protection Team. The Environmental
Protection Officer made submissions that they did not know how all
residents were affected; they only knew how the complainant was
affected, and the Environmental Protection Officer witnessed a
statutory nuisance.
 
The Environmental Protection Officer made
representations that they try to work with licence holders,
however, the Premises licence holder did not communicate in this
case. Therefore, Environmental Protection had no choice but to take
enforcement action. The Premises licence holder contended that they
were not aware of the Environmental Protection Team
communications.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
most of the complaints are to do with the use of the outdoor area
Sunday to Wednesday up to 23:00 hours other days after
midnight.
 
The Sub-committee noted that the noise report
was produced for planning purposes, and that there were 2 visits to
the premises in March and May 2023.
 
The Environment Protection Team found the
music played is background music
condition 23 was being complied with as they
use a noise limiter that was working.
 
The Sub-committee took into account that on 11
May 2023 customers were found smoking in the garden area which can
be a maximum of 50% enclosed under smoke free legislation. It was
noted that if the roof is open it cannot contain the noise.
 
The Premises licence holder made
representations that there are a lot of similar
premises to theirs and they have not generated
noise nuisance from the gardens. The Environmental Protection
Officer made representations that if speakers are on the ceiling,
it will vibrate. The Licence holder made representations that the
speakers run under the residential flats above the premises and
they have not had complaints from those residents.
 
The Sub-committed noted the Environmental
Protection Team representation that they receive complaints, some
of which are unsubstantiated, and that the review application was
made due to the lack of communication with the Premises licence
holder. The Sub-committee noted that the decision to bring a review
was not taken lightly.
 
The Environment Protection Officer made
representations that they were willing to meet with the licence
holders and they wanted the premises licence holder to maintain the
licensing objectives.
 
The Sub-committee noted that the local
resident who lives above the premises made representations that it
is generally a noisy area, but it is not the premises that have
caused this, it is the customers. It was noted that customers are
asked to leave quietly and without causing a nuisance.
 
The Premises licence holder’s legal
representative made representations that the complaints were not
investigated sufficiently, and the Premises licence holder does not
accept that they did not respond to the Environmental Protection
Team correspondence. The Premises licence holder made
representations that they were happy to meet with the Environmental
Protection Team.
 
The Sub-committee noted the Environmental
Protection Office’s representation
that the Noise Abatement Notice has expired
and if the extractor fan is not replaced they will consider
enforcement action such as prosecution. The Environmental
Protection Officer felt that the Premises licence holder needed to
take the complaints more seriously and communicate with the
Environmental Protection Team.
 
The Sub-committee were disappointed that the
Premises Licence holder did not engage with the Environmental
Protection Team earlier to try and resolve the issues.
 
The Sub-committee decided not to revoke the
premises licence, and took into
consideration that there were a number of
complaints. The Sub-committee noted there were two residents who
supported the application for the review. These local residents did
not attend and make their representations, therefore the
Sub-committee could not and ask questions.
 
The Sub-committee felt it was not appropriate
to revoke the premises licence.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that
the Premises licence holder accepted the conditions proposed by the
Licensing Authority as the way forward to resolve the public
nuisance issues.
 
The Sub-committee felt that with modified
conditions on the licence, the premises would improve and be run in
a manner that complied with the conditions of the premises licence,
and would promote the licensing objectives in the future.
 
Public
Informative:
 
The Premises licence holder is encouraged to
engage in meaningful dialogue with the local residents to resolve
any issues relating to the premises, and for the Premises licence
holder to play their part in reducing any impacts of noise
emanating from the premises, particularly during the evening and
late at night.
 

Your right to appeal

 
If
you are aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction attached to
this decision, you have the right to appeal to the Thames
Magistrates Court, 58 Bow Road, London E3 4DJ within 21 days of the
date you receive this written decision