Agenda item

Application to Vary a Premises Licence held by The Canary Bar, Leeds Dock, Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1EG

The report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory requests consideration for an application to vary a premises licence made by Allied London One Limited, for The Canary Bar, Leeds Dock, Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1EG.


The report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory requested Member’s consideration of an application to vary a premises licence made by Allied London One Limited, for The Canary Bar, Leeds Dock, Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1EG.

In attendance at the meeting were:

  • Claire Morris – Kuit Steinhart Levy LLP- applicant’s representative
  • Tom McCartney – attending on behalf of the applicant, Allied London One Limited
  • Stephen Bickers – attending on behalf of the applicant, Allied London One Limited


Members were advised that a resident who was attending as an objector had attended to make a representation. However, prior to the commencement of this hearing the resident seemed to have left the building, as he could not be located. It was noted that his representation formed part of the submitted report.

The Legal Officer set out the procedure for the meeting.

The Licensing Officer presented the application, highlighting the following points:

  • The history of the premises was set out at Paragraph 2 of the submitted report. It was noted that in May 2020 the application for the premises was granted by the Licensing Sub Committee with a condition prohibiting loud speakers in external areas of the premises or in entrance lobbies which open directly onto external areas. This application had been heard by the Licensing Sub Committee due to representations from local residents.
  • June 2022 – An application for a minor variation was sought by the applicant to expand the external area. This application had attracted comments from local residents which suggested that granting the licence could adversely impact the licensing objectives. It was noted that this application was rejected by the Licensing Authority on the grounds of the potential for noise disturbance from an increased number of patrons using a significantly expanded outside area for consumption of food - drinks and the potential for noise disturbance from outside area to continue into the evenings, adversely affecting the use and enjoyment of nearby residences.
  • A copy of the premises licence was attached at Appendix A of the submitted report.
  • The application was made by Allied London One Limited:
    • To licence the external area delineated on the plan accompanying the application
    • To amend condition 15 so that the restriction on open containers of alcohol being taken away from the premises is disapplied as part of wider public and private events taking place within the dockside area 
    • To include 4 additional measures relating to monitoring the external area, the clearing of glasses/bottles from the external area and added signage.
  • A copy of the application at the time of submission was appended to the submitted report at Appendix B. The current proposed operating schedule following amendments and including agreed conditions was attached at Appendix C. It was noted that those agreed conditions related to a suggested measure from the Licensing Authority and a measure suggested by a local ward councillor, resulting in the representations being withdrawn. Furthermore, representations lodged by the Environmental Protection Team and Planning Department had been withdrawn in light of the revised operating schedule.
  • A map identifying the location of the premises was attached at Appendix D.
  • A copy of the representation received from the Licensing Authority was appended to the report at Appendix E.
  • Redacted representations from five individuals were appended at Appendix F.


Ms Morris the applicant’s representative addressed the Sub Committee and provided the following information:

  • The applicant acknowledged that the premises were in a location surrounded by residential properties and only requested the use of the modest space which was steps until 10:00pm.
  • The proposed area was close to the premises which could comfortably seat 25-30 persons, it was acknowledged that the area would be more popular in summer than winter.
  • The external area would not be furnished, not have a bar and no music would be played.
  • Although, there are over 2,000 residents in the area only 5 individual representations had been received in objection to the proposals. Members were advised that the applicant had spoken to Cllr Wray who had made a representation on behalf of the residents and the applicant had agreed to incorporate a measure suggested by him. He had now withdrawn his representation.
  • It was noted that all responsible authorities who had submitted representations had now withdrawn them.
  • It was acknowledged that there had been reports of noise nuisance during August, however there had been no further reports made.
  • The conditions set out would work in conjunction with the licence with enhanced CCTV in place which would allow staff to monitor the outside area from behind the bar. Staff would be trained to manage any conflict and would also be required to carry out walkabouts around the outside area every 30 minutes. Members were told that the outside area was already part of the cleaning routine.
  • Members were advised that after 10pm no patrons would be able to take drinking vessels outside with them, even when using the area to smoke.
  • It was noted that there had been some instances of pick pocketing and an incident with the pontoon. However, this had nothing to do with the Canary Bar.
  • In relation to section 182 Guidance the premises would ensure a good working relationship with all responsible authorities and the residents.


Responding directly to questions from Members, the Licensing Sub Committee were provided with the following information:

  • The outside area would be managed by staff with the assistance of the enhanced CCTV, regular walkabouts of the external area and staff training to manage any conflict.
  • It was the view that some of the complaints were unfounded in relation to the external area and pre-dated any of the current proposals.
  • Cllr Wray had acted on behalf of the residents. Members were advised that there was one residents’ association in one of the apartment blocks and there were also some social groups.
  • The Leeds Dock Management were approached to hold events in the area, and this would be when the external area would be most used. There were usually 3 to 5 main events each year.
  • The Canary Bar was used to supporting the events and preferred not to use the Temporary Event Notice process to provide the bar facilities. This would form part of the event management plan.
  • The steps and the walkways would be cleared of litter, plastic drinking vessels would be used in the external area, there would be no tables or chairs. It was noted that the area was three deep sets of steps which were not accessible from the walkway, set away from the public area.
  • There would be no external speakers.
  • There were adequate toilet facilities in the Canary Bar for patrons using the external area and the area would be monitored by CCTV.
  • This area was not currently licensed and if it should be granted it would make it easier to manage under the proposed conditions.


In summing up Ms Morris said that the area would be managed by the Canary Bar, they had addressed all concerns raised and had worked with the responsible authorities to include suggested measures. The Canary Bar would continue to engage with the residents and encourage them to contact the Bar if there were any issues.

It was her view that the conditions were necessary and proportionate in promoting the licensing objectives, especially with the enhanced CCTV and patrols of the external area.

The Licensing Sub Committee considered all the information provided to them by the responsible authorities, residents, Cllr Wray and presented at the hearing.

RESOLVED – To grant the variation to the premises licence as requested.


The meeting concluded at 13:55



Supporting documents: