Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that these premises were in a cumulative impact area.  The applicant had agreed to reduce the hours and the police conditions had been accepted.

The police officer reported that the premises was situated in the Holloway/Finsbury Park cumulative impact area. He reported that there were seven off-licences within 100 metres of this premises and he recommended that the application be refused. However, he stated that if the application was agreed that the two conditions be placed on the licence as detailed in their representation.

The licensing authority objected to the application for a 24 hour off-licence.  She stated that the applicant had not demonstrated in their application how the licensing objectives would be promoted with the additional hours and how they would not add to the cumulative impact in the area, which was already an area of high crime.

The public health authority reported that this area already had a high density of premises and had the sixth highest rate of alcohol specific hospital admissions in the borough. 

Nedim Kale, supported by an interpreter, reported that he wished to reduce the application hours to 2am or 3am. This was not a new business.  He stated he would apply strict ID regulations to sales to prevent problems. He had tried to open later for one week, without selling alcohol and had received customers.  As his business was new and he was having problems, selling alcohol was one of the options he needed to try.

In response to questions it was noted that there were three staff working at the premises.  The applicant had seven years experience.  He had attended a training course initially.  He would promote the licensing objectives with the strict rules that he used. He operated Challenge 25, he did not sell after 11pm and he did not sell to people who were drunk. He would not operate any drink promotions.  He had no problems since opening a year ago.  He informed the Sub-Committee that his refusal book initially showed a lot of entries but this had reduced. His licence was important to  him and he would stick to the rules.

In response to questions from the licensing officer it was confirmed that his amended application was for 8am to 2am, Monday to Sunday.

In summary, the police informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant’s licence restricted him from opening after 11pm and he should not have opened beyond that time. 

Mr Kale reported that he had asked the Council and they had told him that it would be not be a problem opening after 11pm.  He stated that he needed the additional cashflow and was trying the later extension to the licence.  He would operate strictly and he did not consider that there would be added problems in a cumulative impact zone.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of 534-536 Holloway Road, N7 6JP 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 under the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new or varations to 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 licensing Sub-Committee concluded that allowing the variation and the extension of hours would be likely to add to the existing cumulative impact in the area and would undermine the licensing objective of crime and disorder. It considered that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises appeared to be well managed and the applicant demonstrated a commitment to a high standard of management. However, licensing policy 2, paragraph 7, states that the licensing authority will not consider this as an exceptional circumstance, justifying the Sub-Committee in departing from the special policy in this case.