Content

The decision of the Committee is to grant the
application subject to the conditions set out in the operating
schedule within the supplemental agenda, save for one additional
condition which limits the terminal hour for use of the external
yard area by patrons to 9pm. Also, a revision of the condition
relating to off-sales of alcohol which will limit these to
unfinished bottles of wine or beer, which have been resealed or new
bottles to be taken home, but only purchased by customers who have
dined in the premises.
 
The Committee in reaching its decision has
taken into account:
 
· 
The evidence before it both written and oral
 
· 
The relevant parts of the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy especially paragraphs 4.7, 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2
 
· 
The relevant parts of the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State
in particular paragraphs 1.16, 1.17, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27,
2.28, 2.31, 2.32 and 9.12.
 
Committee’s reasoning and findings
are:
 
Applicant
The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Laura Dawson,
representing the Applicant, who was accompanied by Mr David
Christer, Director of the Applicant company, and Ms Beverley Smith,
Licensing Agent from Aspire Licensing.
 
Ms Dawson described the proposed operating
style of the premises as a “high-end bar and bistro”
with a primary focus on food. She emphasised that the sale of
alcohol would be ancillary to food service and not intended to
facilitate a bar-style operation. This approach was reflected in
the operating schedule, which included a condition restricting
alcohol sales for on-site consumption to persons seated and
consuming food – commonly referred to as a “restaurant
condition”. The food offering would consist of tapas-style
dishes, complemented by high-end wines. The premises were intended
to be family-friendly, with a relaxed atmosphere conducive to
dining and conversation. Alcohol sales would cease at 22:30 hours,
with the premises closing at 23:00 hours to allow a 30-minute
drinking-up period.
 
Ms Dawson confirmed that planning permission
had been granted for the premises. As part of the planning
application, and following consultation with Environmental Health,
a noise impact assessment had been undertaken. This resulted in the
implementation of several noise attenuation measures, including the
installation of a secondary ceiling to reduce noise transmission to
the residential flat above. Ms Dawson stated that the noise level
had been mitigated to 22db, below the threshold set by building
regulations. A kitchen extraction system with integrated noise
reduction features had also been installed, and the overall impact
was assessed as low. Consequently, Environmental Health had not
submitted a representation.
 
Ms Dawson further advised that following
discussions with Northumbria Police, the Applicant had agreed to
additional conditions which addressed the concerns previously
raised, resulting in the withdrawal of the Police representation.
No representation had been received from the Licensing
Authority.
 
In response to the representation submitted by
Public Health, Ms Dawson reiterated that alcohol sales would remain
ancillary to food service and that the premises would not operate
as a bar, pub, or destination drinking venue. She expressed the
Applicant’s willingness to adjust operating hours to reflect
community preferences and align with other local businesses. While
acknowledging concerns regarding the density of licensed premises
in the area, Ms Dawson submitted that the proposed venue was
designed to complement the local environment and residents, rather
than attract drink-led clientele. She highlighted the economic
investment represented by the application and the Applicant’s
commitment to promoting the licensing objectives, as evidenced by
the comprehensive operating schedule and letters of support
included in the supplemental agenda.
 
During questioning, Ms Dawson confirmed that
the premises would accommodate 32 internal covers, with potential
for an additional 12 covers in the external yard area, as shown on
the submitted plan. Regarding off-sales, she clarified that the
intention was not to permit walk-in alcohol purchases, but to allow
diners to take away unfinished bottles or purchase additional
bottles following a meal. The condition referring to off-sales
being at the “discretion of management” was intended to
cover these scenarios.
 
Ms Dawson described the anticipated clientele
as comprising older patrons, families, and young professionals
residing locally. The venue was not targeted at the student market,
although students may attend. She noted that the pricing of both
food and alcohol would reflect the high-end nature of the offering,
with a focus on fresh, Mediterranean-style dishes and healthier
options.
 
In relation to the external yard, Ms Dawson
explained that it would not be in year-round use and would be
covered by an acoustically insulated roof awning, more substantial
than standard umbrellas. The awning would cover all seating but not
the entire yard, which would also include a designated smoking
area. She noted that similar rear yard usage existed at other
premises on the same street. Due to its limited size, the yard
would be easily monitored by staff, who would be trained to manage
noise and nuisance appropriately. A strict policy would be in place
for dealing with any such issues. The premises would be staffed by
four waiting staff, two chefs, and one general manager. The
external yard would close at 22:00 hours. The operating schedule
also required waiter/waitress service and the purchase of food. Ms
Dawson confirmed the Applicant’s willingness to engage with
residents and consider further adjustments to the terminal hour for
the yard if necessary.
 
Representation from resident – Alice
McAndrew
Ms McAndrew attended the hearing and provided
oral representations in support of her written objection. She
confirmed that she resides in close proximity to the premises,
having moved to the area approximately two years ago. Ms McAndrew
expressed concern regarding the increasing number of licensed
premises in the locality, which she felt had led to an imbalance
between residential and commercial uses. While she acknowledged
that it may not be the Applicant’s intention, she considered
that the proposed premises would nonetheless contribute to the
changing character of the area.
 
Ms McAndrew referred specifically to the
existing licensed premises adjacent to the application site, namely
The Last Resort, and described the impact of noise emanating from
its external yard area. She stated that her property is equidistant
between The Last Resort and the proposed premises, and that noise
from the yard at The Last Resort had adversely affected her and her
young family, including her mental health. She expressed the view
that, due to the small size of the yard, noise levels could be more
concentrated and disruptive. She further noted that patrons in
Newcastle are willing to use outdoor areas throughout the year,
regardless of weather conditions, and therefore anticipated a
year-round impact.
 
Ms McAndrew acknowledged that The Last Resort
had taken steps to mitigate noise following her direct complaints,
and had been receptive to her concerns. However, she stated that
such measures had not fully resolved the issue, and she believed
that similar mitigation proposed by the Applicant would be
insufficient to prevent further disturbance. She likened the
experience to having a neighbour regularly hosting large gatherings
in their garden.
 
In response to questions from the
Sub-Committee, Ms McAndrew clarified that her objection was not
limited to the use of the rear yard, but was a general objection to
the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the area.
Nonetheless, she confirmed that the use of the yard was her primary
concern. When asked whether reduced hours of operation for the yard
might address her concerns, she stated that no hours of use would
be acceptable, and she did not consider that any mitigation
measures would adequately address the impact on her and her
family.
 
Decision
The Sub-Committee carefully considered all
written and oral submissions made in relation to the application.
Particular thanks were extended to Ms McAndrew for her attendance
and the clear and thoughtful manner in which she articulated her
concerns.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that no
representations had been received from the Licensing Authority,
Northumbria Police, or Environmental Health.
 
It was acknowledged that the premises are
located within the Chillingham Road Cumulative Impact Area, as
designated in Newcastle City Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy. However, it was accepted by all parties that the
application related to a restaurant. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee
determined that Special Policy 1 was not applicable in this
instance. Nevertheless, the Sub-Committee recognised that it
retains the discretion to consider cumulative impact where relevant
to the promotion of the licensing objectives and where supported by
evidence.
 
Ms McAndrew provided oral evidence regarding
noise nuisance associated with a neighbouring bar. However, the
Sub-Committee was satisfied that the proposed operation of the
premises as a restaurant was materially distinct from that of a
bar, where the primary purpose is the sale and consumption of
alcohol. The Sub-Committee noted that the operating schedule
restricted the sale of alcohol to customers consuming food and
required that all food and drink be served by way of waiter or
waitress service. Furthermore, the restaurant-style operation was
secured by condition, and any change to this would require a
further application.
 
Concerns were raised regarding the use of the
external rear yard area. The Sub-Committee was reassured by the
Applicant’s willingness to engage with residents and to
implement measures to mitigate any potential nuisance, including a
proposed restriction on the terminal hour for use of the yard.
While the Sub-Committee acknowledged Ms McAndrew’s concerns,
it did not accept that no measures could be implemented to ensure
the promotion of the licensing objectives. In balancing the
competing considerations and in order to promote the prevention of
public nuisance, the Sub-Committee determined that a terminal hour
of 21:00 hours each day for the use of the rear yard by customers,
for any purpose including smoking, was appropriate and
proportionate.
 
In relation to off-sales, the Sub-Committee
considered the Applicant’s intended approach as outlined by
Ms Dawson. It was mindful of the requirement that conditions must
be proportionate, justifiable, and enforceable. The Sub-Committee
concluded that the proposed condition within the operating
schedule, which permitted off-sales at the discretion of
management, lacked sufficient clarity and enforceability.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee amended the condition to reflect the
Applicant’s stated intentions while providing greater
specificity regarding the circumstances in which off-sales may
occur, thereby ensuring the continued promotion of the licensing
objectives.
 
In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee
had regard to the principles set out in R (on the application of
Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster
Magistrates’ Court and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 312, which emphasise the need for a balancing
exercise between competing considerations and the importance of
evaluative judgment. The Sub-Committee also took into account
paragraph 9.12 of the statutory guidance issued under section 182
of the Licensing Act 2003, which recognises each Responsible
Authority as an expert in its respective field.
 
Having considered all the evidence before it,
and having given appropriate weight to the representations and
submissions made, the Sub-Committee resolved to grant the
application, subject to the imposition of the additional and
amended conditions set out below. This includes a condition
restricting the use of the external rear yard area (as identified
on the submitted plan) by customers for any purpose, including
smoking, to between the hours of 08:00 and 21:00 daily.
 
Conditions
As per the operating schedule published as a
supplemental agenda, save for adding the following additional
condition (below);
 

The external rear yard (as marked on
the premises plan) will close at 21:00 hours each day and will not
be accessible to any customers, for any purpose (including
smoking), after this time.

 
and the amendment to the condition relating to
off-sales of alcohol, as detailed below;
 
· 
Alcohol may only be consumed on the premises by persons seated
within the restaurant dining for food and as ancillary to that
food.  Sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises will
be restricted to restaurant customers who have unfinished bottles
of wine or beer that are resealed, or to new sealed bottles of wine
or beer to be taken home but only to customers who have dined at
the premises on that same occasion.