Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory on an application for the grant of a premises licence, made by No. 2 Bar Ltd, for No 2 Bar, 2A Church Street, Morley, Leeds, LS27 8LY.

The report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory presented an application for the grant of a Premises Licence for No 2 Bar, 2A Church Street, Morley, Leeds, LS27 8LY.

The following were in attendance for this item:

·  Jennifer Mills – Director of No2 Bar Ltd – Applicant

·  Richard Mills - Director of No2 Bar Ltd – Applicant

·  Jodie Sedgwick – Objector

·  Matthew Harrison – Objector

The Legal Officer explained the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Officer presented the application.

The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol and regulated entertainment every day between 12:00 and 23:00.  The initial application had sought longer hours but these had been reduced following an agreement with the Environmental Protection Team.  Due to the reduction in hours, there was also no longer the need for the provision of Late Night Refreshment.

The application had received representations from responsible authorities, West Yorkshire Police and Environmental Protection.  These representations had been withdrawn following the inclusion of additional measures to the operating schedule and reduction of hours as mentioned above.  There were outstanding representations from other persons.

The applicant was invited to address the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  Prior to the applicant taking on the premises, it had been empty for 6 months.  The applicant had looked at other businesses in the vicinity and felt that this could add to the vibe of the area.

·  The proposed style of operation would be similar to that of other premises in Morley Bottoms.  Some of these premises also had residential properties above.

·  There was no evidence that granting a licence would add to anti-social behaviour.  One of the objectors owned a bar in the area.

·  The premises had always been a commercial unit and the applicant had never received any complaints with regard to noise and cooking smells.

·  Objections relating to noise were factually incorrect.  The applicant did not use the bass and speaker system in the premises and only played low volume instrumental music.

·  Issues with regard to car parking in the area had always existed.  It was anticipated that the vast majority of customers would walk to the premises.

·  Further to comments regarding the location of the building being on a blind bend, people currently used this route between existing licensed businesses.

·  There was no concern regarding available space in the premises for all the necessary facilities such as storage and glass washing.

·  It was felt that many of the objections made have been based on the actions of the previous owner.

·  Disabled access could be provided.

·  With regards to concerns of public nuisance, this would not be an isolated bar and was only 150 metres away from other premises.  The applicant would put measures in place to encourage customers to leave quietly.

·  The application had support from neighbours.

The objectors were invited to address the Sub-Committee.  The following was highlighted:

·  The objector had lived above the premises for thirty years.  It had not originally been designed for residential accommodation and there was no sound proofing.  Conversations and the noises from coffee machines could be heard above and the objector was woken as soon as the premises opened every morning.

·  The biggest issue was the sound system.  This was audible in the flat above whatever the levels were set to and vibrations from the bass could also be felt.

·  The previous occupant had late night parties and the objector had to sleep elsewhere when these occurred.

·  The objector owned a bar and knew of the associated noise issues that there would be.

·  The property was in a residential block.  There were two houses behind where children lived.

·  The objector would no longer be able to live upstairs if the premises were opened as a bar as the premises would be open seven days a week from 08:00 to late at night.  There was also concern that the previous sound system would be used when operating as a bar and the objector would not be able to sell or rent their flat.

·  Traffic on the road outside the premises was fast and there were problems with parking.  In comparison there were parking restrictions and crossings where the bars were located at Morley Bottoms.

·  The cellar was accessed by a shared corridor and would be in constant use and there would also be disturbance from deliveries.

·  People would congregate outside the premises smoking and there would be noise.  The objector would not be able to open their windows due to this.

·  The main concern was the lack of noise insulation and no intention for any soundproofing to be done.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, discussion included the following:

·  The objector explained the soundproofing measures that had been installed at the bar he operated which included insulated stud walls, double boarding and sound boards on the ceiling.

·  It was intended to sell wine, beer and spirits at the premises and also small plates of food.

·  The applicant had access and use of the cellar as part of their tenancy agreement.  It had not yet been decided if this would be used for barrels or whether under the counter barrels would be used.

·  The applicant planned to put in noise insulation between the ceiling cavities and install acoustic boards with three layers of insulation and a gap to prevent any vibration.

·  It was proposed for a wine bar style operation and would be aimed at those aged 40 and upwards.  There would be no promotions such as bottomless brunches.

·  The applicants did have previous experience of working in licensed premises.

·  It had been intended to apply for an alcohol licence when the applicant leased the premises.  It was proposed to operate as a café from 09:00 with licensed hours from 12:00 until 23:00.

·  The objector did not feel soundproofing measures would be sufficient unless all the walls were done as well.

·  There would be adequate space without the use of the cellar.  There was sufficient under counter storage.  It would only be a small establishment with a capacity for 25 people.

·  The previous speaker system was still in position but the applicant would be happy to remove it.

·  There were plans to have occasional live music.  This would be a one person acoustic set.

·  The applicant was unaware of the need for change of use under the planning framework.

The applicant was asked to summarise.  The following was highlighted:

·  The premises had always been for commercial use and the upstairs was not originally intended as a residential dwelling.

·  The applicant had not been aware of any noise complaints prior to taking the tenancy agreement.

·  Similar bars at Morley Bottoms had people living above the premises.

·  There would be soundproofing works and disabled access to the premises.

The Sub-Committee went into private session to make their deliberations and carefully considered the report of the Chief Officer, Elections and Regulatory, the submissions made in writing and at the hearing, and also the Statement of Licensing Policy.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted for 12:00 to 23:00 every day, subject to the conditions agreed with the Environmental Protection Team and West Yorkshire Police forming part of the operating schedule, and the Applicant being advised that the relevant planning permission for use of the building should be obtained.