Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 28, 2025

Purpose:

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.