Agenda item

The police reported that there were a number of venues in the area which the police were aware were used for gambling.  The police had written to the applicant on two occasions, on the 28 August and on the 15 September, and had not been responded to.  They had discovered a number of criminal intelligence reports relating to the venue.  Due to the lack of communication from the applicant they had concerns about the professionalism of management and were still maintaining their objection.

The applicant stated that she was not aware that she needed to respond to the first letter from the police.  She was not aware of any incidents at the premises and stated that there was new management and there were no illegal practices at the venue. She had installed CCTV approximately two months ago, just after the application for the premises licence had been made. The venue was used as a social community for residents.  Customers would sometimes ask for alcohol to drink when playing card games. There was a kitchen area and drinks would be kept behind the bar.  It was not like a pub and customers came to watch football games and to socialise.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that she made her profit through the sale of soft drinks, teas and coffees and nuts and crisps. If alcohol was sold then the profits could increase.  Everyone was welcome to come to the premises but it was mainly used by retired people who played card games and board games with their friends.  No drinks were allowed outside.  No music was played.  Customers would just go outside the premises to smoke.  Signs had been erected to remind customers to leave quietly and customers were also reminded not to make a noise when leaving.  The applicant was unaware of illegal activity but this may have been an issue under the old management.  There would be minimal drinking.  The customers were known to them.  The applicant stated that she had sent an email in response to the letter from the police in September stating that all conditions would be accepted. However, the applicant accepted that she had not read the letter properly and had not responded to concerns from the police about criminal gangs in the area.  The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not taken this letter more seriously and she had not telephoned the police immediately.

In summary, the police appreciated that the CCTV condition proposed had been accepted.  He had been concerned regarding the intelligence reports linked with the venue but not had the opportunity to discuss these with the applicant.  The applicant agreed that she should have spoken to the police about these reports and asked if the item could be deferred in order that she discuss this matter with the police.  The applicant stated that she would be willing to prevent certain people from entering the premises if required.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence for Cengiz Place, 47 Green Lanes, N16 9BU 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 heard evidence from the police that there were restricted criminal intelligence reports related to the venue which was a considerable cause for concern.  The police had written to the applicant regarding these concerns but the applicant had only addressed the conditions relating to CCTV that the police had proposed.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant regarding the future use of the venue and her explanation as to the delay in responding to the police representation and her failure to address the criminal activity that the police had raised with her. She invited the Sub-Committee to adjourn proceedings to enable her to liaise with the police in this regard.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the failure by the applicant to address the serious concerns of the police of persons visiting the venue and their connection to criminal activity gave the Sub-Committee no confidence that any concerns raised in the future would be dealt with by the applicant in a prompt manner which the Sub-Committee considered necessary to promote the licensing objectives; an adjournment would not resolve this matter.

In light of the evidence, the Sub-Committee concluded that the decision to refuse the licence was fair and reasonable.

The Sub-Committee took into account licensing policy 10, in relation to running the business lawfully and in accordance with good business practice, when making their decision.