Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that Parkguard had visited the premises on the 28 July and the licensee had been found operating after hours.

The licensing authority reported that the premises had been found operating beyond 11pm without a licence.  Officers warned the licensee and he made an application for a licence.  He was then visited on the 28 July 2017 and found to be operating after 1am.  The licensee had also not responded to enquiries about timings.  He had run the premises for at least a year without a licence and the licensing authority recommended refusal.

The police reported that following the application for a licence they had contacted the licensee by email and had received a short response.  The police requested further information about his previous experience and received no further response.  A copy of the licence is supposed to be at the venue which it was not.  They considered his ability to manage was in question.  He informed officers that he had previously run a venue in Westminster but police licensing officers at Westminster had not heard of the venue. 

The applicant stated that he was very quiet before 11pm and needed a late licence for more custom.  He did not have a late licence in Westminster and sold the premises in 2012.  He stated that he had one 50cc scooter so did not make much noise and had helped the police when phones had been snatched.  If he was operating CCTV it would help reduce crime.  He had received no complaints.  He was shocked that he had no licence.  He had a small cooker.  He needed the licence for a take away and was not serving any alcohol.  He stated he was struggling financially. 

In response to questions that there was information on the website that stated the premises was operating up until 12 midnight he stated that he had financial problems.  The student population had reduced.  He had received penalty tickets for rubbish but he was away and nobody had informed him. The solicitor had informed him that he had a licence.  He stated that a licensing objective meant that you needed a licence after 11pm.  He had not had training.  He was closing at 11.30 up until June but now his wife could not work and he needed to work later hours to pay for another member of staff.  The Sub-Committee informed the licensee that his need could not override standards of management.  He stated that he could not take a salary.  His ventilation was provided by a window.  The next door premises operated until 1.30 am.  He used one scooter and two bicycles so did not make a noise nuisance.

In summary, the licensing authority said that the business was being advertised until midnight on a delivery service website and this would still require a licence.  The police stated that despite a warning the licensee had continued to operate the business without a licence which was a sign of poor management. There had been no response from the second email sent.  The applicant had not worked with the responsible authorities.  The applicant had stated he had been misled but he did not try and obtain a duplicate licence.  The police considered he would operate as he wanted to and they still considered that the licence be refused.

The applicant stated that he did his best to respond to the police but he was not in the country at the time.  The additional hours would not create a disturbance.  There would be no sales of alcohol.  He had been misled by the solicitor and believed that he had a licence.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Yum Yum, 379 St John Street, EC1V 4LD, 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 took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall within the Clerkenwell 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.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensing authority that the premises were found to be operating beyond 11pm without a licence.   The licensing authority was informed by the applicant that he thought that he had a licence because this is what his solicitor told him when he bought the business. The licensing authority informed the applicant that this was not the case, but this only came to light when the applicant applied to vary the licence that he thought he had. The licensing authority confirmed that the applicant was warned not to operate after 11pm. The Sub-Committee noted the evidence from the licensing authority that after this warning the applicant was again found to be operating the premises without a licence, the most recent incident being on the 28 July.  The Sub-Committee noted that fixed penalty notices had been issued against the applicant in relation to littering, and that these remained unpaid.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that when they contacted the applicant they received only a short reply that did not answer the questions asked. The police confirmed that they contacted the applicant again and received no reply. The Sub-Committee noted the police concerns that any reasonable licensee should want to see a copy of their licence, especially as it is a mandatory condition that the licence be displayed at the premises. The fact that this applicant had not done this raised concerns that standards of management were not what the police would expect from a responsible licensee. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the police contacted their colleagues in Westminster in relation to the premises that the applicant claimed to have run in that area.  Police in Westminster had not heard of the venue. 

The applicant stated that he had big financial problems.  The applicant stated that he had only operated without a licence since June because his wife was pregnant and could no longer work for him, meaning that he had been forced to employ a new member of staff and so had to open later. The applicant stated that he had only two bicycle drivers and one 50cc scooter barely making any noise. The applicant stated that there had been no complaints against him since he opened up and that there was barely any noise or inconvenience to neighbours. The applicant confirmed that he had not had any licensing training.

The Sub-Committee noted the objections of the local residents as set out in the papers.

The Sub-Committee concluded that if this licence was granted it would not promote the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee was very concerned that the applicant took no steps to confirm that the premises had a licence or to obtain a copy for display. The Sub-Committee was also concerned that the applicant had operated without a licence since at least June. Whilst the Sub-Committee took into account the financial difficulties suffered by the applicant the Sub-Committee also had to balance the need to promote the licensing objectives and the impact of poorly managed premises in the local area. The Sub-Committee concluded that the poor standards of management displayed by the applicant so far outweighed the applicant’s financial need for a licence.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had not properly engaged with responsible authorities, nor had he fully taken on board the noise complaints of local residents. As the premises were in a cumulative impact area and the applicant was seeking hours outside the core hours set out in the policy, this was particularly concerning. The Sub-Committee concluded that even with the addition of conditions, to grant the licence would not promote the licensing objectives and that the refusal of the application was therefore reasonable and proportionate. 

The Sub-Committee considered licensing policy 2 in relation to cumulative impact, licensing policy 8 in relation to licensing hours and licensing policies 9 and 10 in relation to standards of management.