Sabrina Cader presented the case for the applicant, highlighting that the current owners had no link to the previous owners, having taken over the premises on 1^st July 2014.  Ms Cader explained that the premises would be a private members’ club, where 48 hours would have to elapse between people applying and then being granted membership status.  The premises had a maximum capacity of between 45 and 50 people.  The restaurant could seat up to 24.  There are 4 function rooms at the rear, each having capacity for 7 or 8 people.  There was no bar, and it was again emphasised that this was a different mode of operation to the previous business on the premises, being a private members club as opposed to a public restaurant operation.  Ms Cader said that noise testing had been done for the sound emitted from the karaoke, with no breakout of noise, and that as there were several fire doors between the room where this would take place and the exterior of the building, that it was not going to cause nuisance.  The owner appreciated the local residents’ concerns, and would have measures to minimise disruption, including a member of staff on the door to ensure noise from people departing the club was reduced, as well as CCTV cameras on the property, including one to cover the exit, which could be monitored by staff inside the building.   Members would be disbarred if there were problems.  There would be no children on site after 10pm.  The proprietor would listen to neighbours’ concerns and work to address these.

Cllr Jeanes expressed concern about noise from minicabs coming to collect guests, and Cllr Gilli Lewis-Lavender expressed concern about the proposed closing time, the late night refreshments, possible future nuisance to any residential development to the back of the property and the possibility of the area becoming similar to Wimbledon Town Centre in terms of late night noise.

In response to these concerns, Ms Cader reiterated that there would be a member of staff at the exit to advise guests to leave quietly, and that the proprietor try to address  the  issues raised by residents.

Cllr Sargeant queried the number of guest members could have accompanying them, (the application proposed ten guests could accompany a member to the premises), the cost of membership, sound proofing with regard to noise to the back of the property, the type of drinks served, whether there was a drinking up time, whether the noise of minicabs could be kept away from the premises, and whether clients for the previous business on site would return to use the new club.

Ms Cader responded that the club had a maximum capacity, so the number of accompanying guests would not increase the overall number of people able to use the club at any one time, that there was an annual membership fee, that sound to the rear of the property hadn’t been checked due to the building currently there, that the drinks served would be Korean wine and beer, and spirits as found in English premisess, that there was no drinking up time, that the licence holder could keep to a condition relating to noise from minicabs and that membership would not be given to the previous business’ clientele. 

Cllr Jeanes pointed out that the local restaurants all had a closing time of 11pm, and the neighbours could co-exist with them and that closing at 2.30am would still mean staff leaving after that time as they would be cleaning up.  Cllr Jeanes was also concerned about groups of guests outside the premises for smoking/taking fresh air etc. 

Cllr G Lewis-Lavender was concerned that the other restaurants nearby could also apply for later licences if this one was granted. 

Anika Bourley explained her concern about people talking outside late at night, and parking issues, including parking across residents’ driveways.  Mr Tait also expressed concern about minicabs creating noise with doors banging. 

The panel retired into closed session at 11.10am and reconvened at 12.05pm

Guy Bishop outlined his advice to the panel on aspects of the Thwaites case and the Luminar Leisure case relating to noise/distance of noise outside premises, and the 2006 Health Act on smoking areas.

The chair gave the decision:

We have carefully considered the application in relation to the licensing objectives, taking into account the evidence of objectors about the impact if the premises licence was granted, and the assurances given by the applicant about their proposed activities.  We have therefore decided to grant the application subject to the following modification to permitted hours as follows:

Retail Sale of Alcohol

12.00 - 23.00 Monday to Thursday,

12.00 - 00.30 Friday and Saturday,

12.00 - 23.00 Sunday

Film, Live Music, Recorded Music, Dance, Anything of a Similar to Live Music, Recorded Music, or Dance

12.00 – 00.30 Monday to Thursday,

12.00 – 01.30 Friday,

12.00 - 23.30 Sundays.

Late Night Refreshment

23.00 – 00.30 Monday to Thursday,

23.00 – 01.30 Friday,

23.00 - 23.30 Sundays.

Opening Hours

12.00 – 00.30 Monday to Thursday,

12.00 – 01.30 Friday,

12.00 - 23.30 Sundays.

We also accept the conditions proposed by the applicants in their submission, subject to the following modifications and additions:

14 – change 10 to 5

Addition of a new condition: The manager/door staff shall monitor and manage the customers leaving the premises, so to avoid noise and disturbance to residents.

We also recommend that any smoking takes place at the rear of the premises and that waiting minicabs we asked to switch off their engines.

This item concluded at 12.07, interested parties for Korean House left the chamber.