The licensing officer reported that officers visited on the 23 September at 11.41pm and had found the premises serving hot food. There were also 12 chairs outside the premises instead of the required 8. The licensee was spoken to about this matter and he stopped serving immediately. The following weekend there was another visit and the premises were found to be complying with their licence.
The licensing authority reported that the hours requested were within the framework hours outlined in licensing policy 8.
A local resident who spoke against the application stated that the terminal hour should be midnight during the week and 11pm on Sunday. She had seen six tables outside the premises which the resident did not think were covered by licence. The licensing officer clarified that the premises had authorisation for four tables and 8 chairs outside the premises which were to be cleared at 11pm.
The applicant’s representative reported that an application had been submitted about a month ago which had been ill prepared and had longer hours. This had been refused. This revised application was more in keeping with the licensing policy and was within framework hours. The premises would not be serving alcohol. The police and the licensing authority had not put in any objection. The licensee had applied for temporary event notices over the past three months. On the evening that hot food was found to be served after hours, the premises had a sudden influx of customers after 11pm and orders had been taken.
In response to questions it was noted that after 11pm the premises was just a take away and tables and chairs would be removed. Trading after hours on that occasion was just a one off. Staff had been trained and would not serve people who were drunk. The premises had been operating for six months and there had been no issues with either this or the next door premises which was also owned by the applicant. On the evening that they had been operating after hours, customers had made their order before 11pm and the restaurant had just been completing these orders. This had been the only issue in the six months of ownership. Tables and chairs were removed 10 minutes before 11pm. It was noted that the applicant also operated La Forchetta, the next door premises and had no issues. The applicant’s representative stated that he was a qualified trainer and would train all staff. They did consider employing a door supervisor but the premises was very small and so one was not considered necessary. The licensee could call on Dirty Martini if there were any issues. There were plans to employ additional staff between 11pm and 1am. The licensee was very experienced.
In summary, the local resident reported that she had seen more tables outside than they were allowed. She thought that customers could be sold alcohol from the neighbouring premises. She considered that the hours requested were outside the policy. The licensing officer clarified that the hours requested were within the framework for premises that sold late night refreshment.
The applicant stated that the application was within framework hours. Tables and chairs were shared with the premises next door but only four tables and 8 chairs would be outside these premises. The licensee had been trading for seven years at the neighbouring premises with no issues.
1) That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Holy Pitta Yeeros House, 74D Upper Street N1 0NY, be granted to allow:-
a) The provision of late night refreshment, Sundays to Thursdays from 11 pm until midnight and Fridays and Saturdays from 11 pm until 1 am.
b) The premises to be open to the public: Sundays to Thursdays from 10am until midnight and Fridays and Saturdays from 10 am until 1 am.
2) Conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on page 180 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following additional condition.
· All outside tables and chairs to be removed at 11pm.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.
The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 2. The premises fall under the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact area. Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that, applications for newpremises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee noted that the intended hours of operation were within the core hours as set out in Licensing Policy 8.
No representations were received from any of the Responsible Authorities. In addition hereto, the Sub-Committee took into consideration the submissions from the Licensing Officer that he had witnessed the applicant trading outside authorised hours on 23rd September 2016 and the response from the applicant.
The Sub-Committee concluded that the licensing objectives would not be undermined by the granting of the application and that it would not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of the interested party in relation to tables and chairs outside the premises. The Sub-Committee accordingly granted the application with the additional condition that the tables and chairs be removed at 11pm.
The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that this was a reasonable, proportionate and appropriate decision taking all factors into consideration.