Agenda item

Crocker’s Folly, 24 Aberdeen Place, NW8

17/00767/LIPV

1.

Conditions being varied, added or removed

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

Mr Lisle, representing the Applicant, explained that the purpose of the application was to extend the hours for the use of the external area to the right of the entrance door.  It was currently permitted until 21:00 hours and the Applicant was seeking a terminal hour of 23:00.  Mr Lisle informed Members that the Applicant had been running the premises for two years and it was not a profitable enterprise.  Crocker’s Folly did not open on Mondays.  The additional two hours would make a difference. 

Mr Lisle stated that his client accepted that the use of the external area to the left of the entrance door should not be extended beyond 19:00 hours because of the location of the local residents.  However, the Applicant was of the view that the noise experienced by residents to the left of the premises or across the road would be minimal if there were 25-30 people outside to the right of the entrance door until 23:00.  He provided photographs in order to attempt to demonstrate this point.  In order to prevent noise nuisance, the Applicant proposed to employ door security staff on Friday and Saturday evenings when Crocker’s Folly was at its busiest.  There would also be signs and notices placed on the outside tables to request that customers do not cause a nuisance.  Mr Lisle added that he was not aware of any complaints to the Council’s Noise Team during the two years the Applicant had been operating the premises. 

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Lisle what the position was on Lord’s match days.  He replied that there was an existing condition on the premises licence that a minimum of one SIA licensed door supervisors would be on duty at the entrance of the premises during the hours of licensable activity on Lord’s match days.  The Applicant was also required under the conditions on the existing licence to prevent obstruction of the public highway.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Drayan, on behalf of Environmental Health.  He confirmed that the Council’s Noise Team had not received any complaints.  He advised that the maximum number that was likely to be able to be located in the area proposed for the 23:00 terminal hour was 40.  Mr Drayan referred to the street outside being residential.  Those who could potentially be affected by noise nuisance would be residents in Aberdeen Place or the Elmhurst block of flats.  It was not proposed that the hours on the left hand side of the premises would be increased. However, Mr Drayan made the point that although there was unlikely to be direct noise nuisance from the right hand side, noise does travel and reverberate (not always in direct lines) and there was the potential for noise to adversely affect residents until the later hour.  A key aspect was whether the Applicant was able to manage the behaviour of those outside the premises so that nuisance was not caused to neighbours.  Mr Drayan referred to there being an electrical sub-station opposite and made the point that residents in the Lilestone Estate were quite far away.  The Lilestone Estate residents were only likely to be affected in the event of anti-social behaviour.

Mr Brown, representing local residents, addressed the Sub-Committee.  He stated that there was a significant body of objection to the application and residents had been consistent in expressing similar concerns to the applications for the extension of the terminal hour for the use of tables and chairs outside in 2014, 2016 and 2017.  He also made the point that the Sub-Committee had been consistent in acknowledging the likely effect of nuisance resulting from extended hours outside the premises.

Mr Brown drew Members’ attention to Mr Drayan having recommended the terminal hour of 19:00 for the external area to the left of the entrance door at the hearing in 2014.  The Applicant had at the time requested 21:00.  He also raised the point that the 21:00 terminal hour was of significance because that was the time when smokers were limited outside. The Applicant was now proposing that this was extended to 23:00. It was also being proposed that waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, would be moved, removed or placed in outside areas until 23:00 hours.  Currently it was permitted until 21:00.

Mr Brown commented that in April 2016 the Applicant had proposed to extend the proposed hours for the external area to the right of the entrance door until 22:00.  This application had been refused by the Sub-Committee. A copy of the decision was included in the Licensing Sub-Committee report at pages 402 to 405. The Applicant was now proposing to extend this until 23:00.  Mr Brown said that in 2016 the representations from residents had been similar to those for the current application.  The message from residents was that there had been some issues but that in general the balance was correct.  The likely effect of increasing the proposed hours for the external area was to cause a nuisance.

Mr Brown addressed the Sub-Committee on some of the individual representations.  He referred to Mr Peters living next door and his representation describing how the sounds of its patrons reverberated to the living areas.  It was, according to Mr Peters, manageable up to 21:00.  It would affect him and his young family after 21:00.  Mr Brown also referred to Dr Boyle’s representation where she had written that her bedrooms face onto the street and during the summer she was very aware of people being noisy in the street.

Mr Brown stated that the area is very residential and that there are no other commercial uses on the street until much closer to Edgware Road.  There was also very little vehicular traffic later at night.  Residents had tolerated the situation in relation to the current hours which he believed was the likely reason for the apparent lack of noise complaints.  He made the point that it was not the case that there had been no noise complaints.  Mrs Ziben had made a noise complaint in the summer of 2016 which was not specifically about the external area.  There had also been some enforcement action taken by the Council.

Mr Brown emphasised that the extension of hours would cause disturbance as there would be people outside until later.  The ambient noise would be less at a later hour.  Residents would wish to relax and sleep.  Patrons’ inhibitions would be lowered as they were consuming alcohol.  At the moment they were required to go inside the premises at 21:00.  Residents were keen that the character of the premises did not change and that more people would not be attracted to the premises.  Such a scenario would result in more noise from patrons outside and on dispersing from the premises.  There would also be more smokers outside.  Mr Brown referred to Ms Ziben’s representation that residents have to put up with noise currently from patrons dispersing at 23:00.  However, he believed this had been accepted because of the balance in relation to the external area.  Residents did not want to have to phone up and make complaints because of the extension of the hours outside the premises.  Mr Brown made the point on Ms Ziben’s behalf that there were young children in a significant number of the premises along Cunningham Place.  There were also young families in Aberdeen Place.    

Mr Brown took the view that nothing had been offered by the Applicant to mitigate what was being proposed by the Applicant.  The intention of notices was good but their impact was, he believed, questionable.

The Sub-Committee also heard from local residents objecting to the application.  Mr Peters stated that he has a 3 year old daughter who needs to sleep.  The situation was manageable now and he did not object to the pub being there.  Parking was a problem in the evenings.  Whilst the owners were saying that they needed to make more profit, Mr Peters did not believe that the solution was to extend the hours outside.

Dr Roth expressed the view that the extension of hours outside would undermine the licensing objectives.  There would be additional noise from the patio and this would take place until later.  There were working people with young families in the vicinity of the premises who should not have to deal with additional noise.  He added that the number of young children had increased over recent years.  His one year old daughter’s bedroom faced the terrace of the premises.  His two daughters both needed to sleep from 19:30.

Dr Roth believed the application would add to anti-social behaviour, including during the six months of the cricket season when fans, if the application was granted, would be able to stand outside until 23:00 and drink.  He recommended to the Applicant that if more business needed to be generated, there should be a focus on the inside area.

Mr Lisle was given the opportunity to respond to the comments of the objectors.  He said that in relation to any noise from dispersal, Crocker’s Folly was only busy on Friday and Saturday evenings.  Some nights there were only a few people inside the premises so he did not believe this was an issue.  He wished to provide clarification on the work of the enforcement officers at the premises.  He believed it was due to the completion of building works.  Mr Drayan informed those present that before Crocker’s Folly fully opened in January 2015 Environmental Health had agreed with the Applicant that it could open partially.  There were works relating to the kitchen.  This had been dealt with in 2015.  There had been unannounced visits by Licensing Inspectors since then and there had been no issues raised.

The Sub-Committee in reaching a decision took into account that the pub is located in a very residential area.  In terms of the premises and the proximity of residents, the Sub-Committee considered based on written and oral representations that a terminal hour of 21:00 for use of the external area to the right of the entrance door was appropriate.  It had been clear from the evidence received from local residents that they had tolerated the current situation.  Members took the view that the Sub-Committees in 2014 and 2016 had managed to get the balance right between the needs of the residents and the interests of the business.  The Sub-Committee also agreed with Mr Brown that the Applicant had not offered proposals to mitigate the effect of the proposal to increase the terminal hour for the outside area by two hours to 23:00.  The application was therefore refused.

The Sub-Committee noted in respect of the business that the internal area of the pub is considerably larger than the external area.  There was an opportunity for the Applicant to look at how to promote the greater use by the public of the inside area and reduce the reliance on the extended use of the external area.