Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Elections, Licensing and Registration which sets out details of an application for the grant of a premises licence for “Nest/Gene” at 1 Silver Lane, Yeadon, Leeds, LS19 7ZX.

(Report attached)

The report of the Head of Elections, Licensing and Registration requested Members to consider an application for the grant of a premises licence made by Follow The Golden Rule Limited, for Nest /Gene 1 Silver Lane, Yeadon, Leeds, LS19 7ZX.

Members were informed of the following points:

·  This was a first application for a premises licence for these premises;

·  The proposed designated premises supervisor was Mr David Watson the applicant;

·  The proposal for the premises was for a cocktail led bar with food offering; 

·  The application asked for recorded music and sale of alcohol;

o  Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 23:00

o  Friday and Saturday 11:00 to midnight

In response to the Licensing Officers question it was noted that no food would be served after 11:00pm.

Members noted that West Yorkshire Police had made a representation in their capacity as a responsible authority. However, negotiations with the applicant prior to the hearing resulted in measures being agreed and the representation being withdrawn. The agreement was attached at Appendix C of the submitted report.

Representations had also been received from members of the public their redacted representations were included at Appendix D of the submitted report Mr and Mrs Wray who had submitted a representation were present at the hearing.

The applicant Mr Watson and his representative Mr Whur attended the hearing.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Mr Whur sought to include additional late items namely a branding document and images of what the bar would look like and style ideas. As not all parties had attended the hearing, Mr Whur needed the permission of the Committee for these to be adduced as evidence. Mr Wray confirmed he had no objection, though he informed the Committee that the documents he had seen did not alleviate his concerns about the premises.  The Committee resolved to accept the late items and considered them before the hearing commenced.

Mr Whur provided the sub-committee with an employment history of the applicant explaining that Mr Watson had been employed at various bars since the age of 18 progressing from bar staff to the position of Manager. It was noted that he had managed some of the livelier bars in the city including bars located on Call Lane.

Mr Whur informed Members that Mr Watson had recently become a father and now wished to open a family styled business closer to home. Mr Whur said that this was not a venture by a large organisation but that Mr Watson was using his own money and therefore he had a vested interest in the premises being a success. The premises were located on the high street and had previously been a bank, Mr Whur was of the view that the application was modest in its request for licensable activities which were similar to other premises located nearby.

It was explained that the name ‘Nest’ was how Mr Watson wanted the premises to feel with a comfortable local family friendly feel. It was proposed that the premises would serve coffee, cakes and sandwiches during the day with sharing platters of specialist meats, cheeses and artisan breads in the evening along with wine and craft beer. It was noted that Mr Watson had also learnt the trade of mixing quality cocktails and these would also be on offer.

 Mr Whur informed the Members of the following points:

·  Police had added extra conditions in relation to CCTV and SIA supervision;

·  Mr Watson would register with Pubwatch;

·  SIA door staff would be employed as necessary e.g. during the world cup;

·  Mr Watson would work in the premises and run the bar himself;

·  Proposal for 4 to 6 people to be employed from the local area;

·  Only one service delivery a week would be required as the premises were small;

·  Bin store was proposed;

·  The bar would be used by local people who would probably walk to the venue;

·  Residential properties were located to the rear of the premises, only a modest level of concern had been raised by residents;

·  Mr Watson had spoken with Mr Wray one of the objectors who was at the meeting and had offered his personal telephone number should any issues arise.

In response to questions from Members the following points were noted:

·  This was not to be a vertical drinking establishment the proposal was for comfortable sofas and coffee tables;

·  A family friendly atmosphere, however children would not be allowed on the premises at night there would be a cut-off point;

·  Food served on an evening would be sharing platters, tapas, grazing food;

·  Capacity was 100, however due to the type of venue proposed it was not expected to ever reach capacity;

·  No outside area;

·  Smokers would be directed away from residential properties;

·  No drinking allowed outside the premises;

·  Mr Watson had experience of managing the dispersal policy and was willing to have this added to conditions;

·  Mr Watson was willing to also add to conditions that no recycling of bottles would take place between 11:00pm and 7:00am.

Mr Wray addressed the sub-committee saying that he had been speaking with Mr Watson and thought him a reasonable character. However, he had concerns in relation to the proposed hours and requested that they be reduced by 30 minutes especially on a weekend.

Mr Wray explained that people leaving the premises would walk past an elderly persons home and although Mr Watson had said that he would manage the dispersal of people from the venue he could not be held responsible for people’s behaviour on their way home after having alcohol.

Mr Wray also raised his concerns in relation to:

·  The location of the smoking area;

·  Deliveries on a busy high street and close to a junction;

·  Layout of the premises including where the kitchen would be located. 

It was noted that Members had already read the representation submitted by Mr Wray and included within the submitted report.

Responding to Mr Wray’s concerns Mr Whur showed Members using a map the proposed designated area for smokers which he said would be managed. He also explained the proposed layout of the premises saying that the upstairs would be the toilets and office; the ground floor would be where the licensable activities would be including the bar and the kitchen; the basement would be the cellar. Mr Whur said that Mr Watson was confident that he would require only one delivery a week.

Mr Whur was of the view that the hours requested were modest and in keeping with traditional pub hours.

The Members considered all the information within the submitted report and presented to the sub-committee hearing. Members were of the view that Mr Watson would be a responsible operator and had been encouraged that Mr Watson had offered his personal mobile number to residents.

RESOLVED – To grant the application as applied for but to include the agreed conditions agreed between West Yorkshire Police and the operator.

The committee also included the following conditions on the licence, as agreed by the operator during the hearing:

1. There shall be no glass disposal between 11pm and 7am

2. No drinks to be taken outside the premises.