Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the premises were in a cumulative impact zone and there was a history of non-compliance.

The police informed the Sub-Committee that their position had changed since their representation had been submitted.  As the area was busy they had wished to meet with the applicants who had also operated at 16 Station Place. It appeared that the premises at Station Place did not have a late night refreshment licence for three years.  The applicant was informed by the police that a licence was required. The police visited the premises after 1am on the 1 October and found the premises in operation without a licence.  He asked to speak to the manager.  As soon as the manager arrived the police officer stated that there was a strong smell of an illegal substance.  The staff continued operating until ordered not to do so by the police.  He had no faith that they would adhere to the law and asked that the licence be refused. 

The licensing authority agreed with the police.  It was stated that licensing officers had met with the applicant and had discussed an end time of 01:00 am.  The applicant was informed that he would need to close at 11pm until he obtained a licence.  The premises had been found open at 1am even though they had been told to close at 11pm a few days before.  They did not have faith in the applicant as he had a history of non-compliance.  It was noted that they would be entitled to trade up until 11pm without a licence. 

The applicant stated that his uncle owned the other premises at Station Place so he should not be blamed for not having a licence.  The premises at Kentish Town were owned by his father’s partner.  He denied having any illegal substances on the 1 October as he was strongly against this.  He was surprised the police did not speak to him about it at the time.  The applicant had applied for a 3am licence but had negotiated with officers. Officers warned the applicant that they had no licence until the meeting.  They had thought that they would get their licence.  They did not want to sell after hours or to do anything illegal.  They asked the Sub-Committee to give them a chance.  They had been closing since the 1 October at 11pm. This was a very busy area where people wanted hot food.  They would give people food to eat and then they would go home.  From 8pm to 10pm it was quiet.  For their business to thrive they needed later hours.  It had been difficult with hours only up until 11pm.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that there was a dark spot behind the van where people could take illegal substances. He could not be responsible for this area and the police had not mentioned it at the time.  He said that when he stayed open late he did not think it was licensed but it was a mistake on his behalf.  The police stated that he was still serving despite them being there and the police officer had to call over to them to get them to stop.  He knew the license had not been granted but thought as the application had been made it was ok.  The applicant responded to a question about the licensing objectives.  He stated that he did not have anything to do with the Station Place premises.  His dad was his partner with these premises.  His uncle ran Station Place. He had no knowledge of licensing law at the Kentish Town premises.  He just dealt with cash and paying bills. The Kentish Town premises closed at 11pm.

In summary the police officer stated that when he arrived at the premises on the 1 October he told the applicant when he appeared that it smelt of cannabis.  He stated he had evidence that the applicant had been involved at Station Place which had operated illegally up until 03:00am for three years.  The applicant stated that this was a small take away.  They were trying to stick to the rules.  They had no complaints about crime.  They were just trying to build a business and feed people.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of E Mono, 13 Stroud Green Road, N4 2AL be refused.

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 noted Licensing Policy 2 and that the premises fall within the Finsbury Park and Holloway Road cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that, applications for new premises 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.

Representations had been made by the police and licensing authority.  The Sub-Committee noted that the responsible authorities had visited the premises on the 1 October after 1am.  They found the premises operating after hours when the licence had not yet been granted and the police had to ask the applicant to stop serving.

The Sub-Committee took into account licensing policy 10 regarding the applicant’s commitment to high standards of management. The applicant had been given advice from the licensing authority and the police that he was acting illegally by operating after 11pm.  He had failed to implement the advice that had been given and the Sub-Committee did not find convincing his explanation that he believed that the premises were licensed or that he had made a simple mistake about the hours.  The policy states that the licensee should be able to understand verbal and written advice and legal requirements. The Sub-Committee noted that he had experience in the business of selling hot food and should have been aware of the requirements. He had not run his business lawfully to date and had failed to demonstrate a track record of compliance with legal requirements although the applicant emphasised repeatedly that he was not selling alcohol or encouraging anti-social behaviour. The Sub-Committee had no confidence that he would keep to whatever hours were granted bearing in mind his track record.