Agenda item

The applicant requested an adjournment as his legal representative could not be present.  The police asked that the matter proceed as the transfer was deemed granted until a decision by the Sub-Committee had been made.  The Sub-Committee agreed to proceed with the hearing.

The police outlined their objections to the application as detailed in the agenda and summarised events that had occurred on the 16 August 2014.  The noise officer was called as a witness for the police.  She reported that she had written to the licensee regarding an undischarged noise condition requiring an acoustic survey.  Following a lack of response she sent a second letter and then visited with the licensing officer.  At the visit, noise outside the premises by customers was witnessed and loud music was witnessed inside. The noise officer left a card and was contacted once but had heard nothing further.  The police reported that the applicant had not met the high standards of management required. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had taken over in April.  No prior knowledge of the applicant was known. The noise team was still waiting to be contacted by the applicant.

The applicant reported that he had obtained the lease in April and had opened the premises on the 12 July.  He believed if he changed his name on the council tax and business rate document, the licence would also change. He had left a person he trusted in charge on the night in question.  His job had now been terminated.  The CCTV was not working.

In response to questions he reported that he managed other venues.  The designated premises supervisor was not present at the meeting as he was working.  The person left in charge on the 16 August was not the temporary manager, but the cleaner. The applicant reported that the cleaner had re-opened the business after he had left.  The police informed the Sub-Committee that they were unable to confirm this explanation of events as the CCTV was not working.  When asked by the Sub-Committee, he reported that he could run a safe, crime free venue. He stated the music was not very loud and he had tried to do everything requested. When asked about his knowledge of the licensing objectives he stated they were ‘keeping me alive’.

The police reported that the applicant lacked knowledge about the licensing laws and the objectives.  This meeting had not changed his opinion.  The applicant was not suitable and he had not demonstrated anything to allay his fears.

The applicant stated he would follow the regulations.  If granted he would be careful and he had enough experience not to spoil his business. If it happened again he would hand the keys over himself.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence transfer and variation of the designated premises supervisor in respect of Addis Ababa, 192 Seven Sisters Rd, N4 3NX be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee heard an application from the applicant for an adjournment of the meeting on the basis that the applicant’s legal representative could not be present.  When asked, the applicant confirmed that his legal representative was away.  The Sub-Committee noted that there was no information from the legal representative and no explanation as to why someone else could not attend in their place.  The application for an adjournment was refused and the hearing went ahead.

The Sub-Committee noted the police objection at pages 87 and 88 of the agenda.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the police were concerned that the applicant appeared to know nothing about the licensing act, the councils licensing policy, or, indeed, the terms of the licence. The Sub-Committee noted the police concerns that the applicant had no ability to run a safe, crime free venue. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the noise team, who spoke as a witness for the police, that they had written to the applicant regarding an undischarged noise condition and had received no response. The noise team confirmed that a second letter was sent with no response.  The noise team gave details of a visit to the premises when pushing and shoving between young men of North African origin was witnessed outside the premises and loud live music was witnessed inside the premises and that it was only after this visit that any contact was made by the applicant. It was noted that there had been no further contact after this.  

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that he believed that after he took over the lease for the premises and changed the Council Tax and Business Rates into his name, the licence would automatically change as well.  The applicant stated that he had been doing business in the area for a long time and was familiar with the area.  The applicant stated that he made a mistake which he regretted and that a person that he had trusted had left the premises open.  Upon questioning by the Sub-Committee the applicant confirmed that the person he had trusted with the keys to the premises was a cleaner and that this person had now been dismissed.  The Sub-Committee noted that the CCTV inside the premises was not working and that it was therefore not possible to verify the applicant’s version of events. The Sub-Committee noted that the person named in the application as the new designated premises supervisor was not present at the meeting and so could not be questioned. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was asked if he could state the licensing objectives and he answered ‘keeping me alive’.

The Sub-Committee shared the police concerns that the applicant had not demonstrated any ability to run a safe, crime free venue.  The Sub-Committee was concerned with the applicant’s lack of knowledge or concern regarding licensing law and the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant was unable to manage the premises to the required standards and did not seem aware of the responsibilities that come with an alcohol licence. The Sub-Committee noted the breaches of the existing conditions and the trading out of hours.  The Sub-Committee formed the view that granting the applications would not promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee took into account licensing policies 9 and 10 in relation to the standards of management.