Skip to content

Agenda item

Go Mezza, 680 Holloway Road, N19 3NP - New premises licence

Minutes:

The licensing officer reported that the hours had been amended following consultation with the police. The police representation had therefore been withdrawn.  There were three outstanding residential representations.

 

A local resident reported that she objected to this licence based on two licensing objectives, the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. There had been noise disturbance from the extractor fan for many years, both before and after the current applicant had started trading. She had texted a previous owner when there was a problem, and they would switch off the fan and staff would leave. When he had left the business, co-operation ceased, and a Section 18 had been served on the premises but then the business had closed. There was a period of silence during this time but when the new owner opened the premises the noise began again.  When speaking to the owner he had been dismissive and asked the resident to deal directly with the landlord. Her partner had also spoken to the applicant. The Council had witnessed this nuisance and confirmed a section 18 noise abatement notice. This was breached in July and a fixed penalty notice had been issued.  The landlord stated that a hood would be placed over the fan. This work had been carried out; the noise level had improved slightly but persisted.  The fan was switched off at 11pm and she had come to terms with the noise, but she struggled with sleep with the current hours of operation.  An officer had attended from the anti-social behaviour team and had said that this could potentially be a statutory noise nuisance in the warmer months. Other neighbours were also unhappy about the noise. Regarding crime and disorder, she stated that they lived on a quiet street and patrons were drug taking and dealing outside.

 

In response to questions, the resident stated that the issue persisted even when there had been a good relationship with the occupier. A statutory notice had been served but then the occupiers had left the premises so there had been no engagement around solutions. Following a further notice a hood had been put over the extractor fan but still the problem continued. The solution was a technical issue.

 

The applicant stated that the premises had been closed for a year and he had taken over in April 2023. He had met the resident before he had commenced trading. Residents in the flats had complained and he hired an acoustic engineer. Two fans had been reduced to one.  They closed the premises at 10.45 to allow for the extraction to end at 11pm. The engineer had suggested an acoustic housing and once work was completed the immediate neighbours were ok with the noise levels. They had carried out all possible work to the extractor. All local businesses were closing and businesses needed to trade when there was high demand. His premises were on Holloway Road had nothing to do with drug dealing. He had been informed that issues needed to be reported to the landlord which is the reason why he referred the resident to them. He wanted to work with neighbours. He was unable to continue cooking without extraction on. They did not have any issues with his other sites. The business was mainly delivery, but they had four seats in the premises.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that there were no noise issues from a visit the previous evening. Work had been carried out, but they would not know how much of a problem it was until the summer. He had removed one extractor fan; the duct had been insulated, the hood installed and the flats above had no noise issues since January. The business was mainly take-away and delivery. They did not sell alcohol and had no intention to do so. There had been no complaints about the drivers. The hours requested were within framework hours. The extractor had silencers fitted and was the same as extractor fans used at other sites. He considered that the issue was that the premises had been closed and so the area had been very quiet for a long period.  The delivery drivers left straight away. If drivers misbehaved they could be blocked.

 

In summary, the resident stated that she was only 10 metres away from the fan and higher up so she could hear it more. They had problems on the road when people had been inebriated. People had been standing in front of the business. She was not asking for the business to close, but the fan needed to be permanently fixed as it was very concerning.

 

The applicant said that he wanted to co-exist with residents.  The premises were on a busy road. He hoped to satisfy the noise issue and was happy to do more to do so.

 

RESOLVED

1)      That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Go Mezza, 680 Holloway Road, N19 3NP be granted to allow:-

 

a)    The provision of late-night refreshment, Sundays to Thursdays from 11pm to midnight and Fridays and Saturdays from 11pm until 1am.

 

b)    The premises to be open to the public, Sunday to Thursday from 10am to midnight and on Fridays and Saturdays from 10am until 1am.

 

2)      That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on pages 88 to 90 of the agenda be applied to the licence.

 

Note of the Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee advised that both parties keep in contact with the noise team.

 

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Holloway and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

 

Three local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the resident who confirmed that they experienced noise nuisance with the extractor fan. A section 18 Abatement Notice was served on the previous owner. A hood was placed over the extractor fan. The resident confirmed that the noise could be a statutory noise nuisance in the summer months as confirmed today following a visit from the Noise Team. The resident said that they don’t know what will be required as a solution as it was a technical question. They further noted that they were concerned that the business would be open until 1am with the debilitating noise of the fan.

 

The applicant said that they took over the property in April 2023 and admitted to a Fixed Penalty Notice being issued as a result of not turning of the extractor fan at 11pm. The applicant said that he learnt from this to turn off the fan at 10:45pm so that there was no noise from it at 11pm following a period of cooling.

 

The applicant further stated that from September – December 2023, a lot of work had been carried out to install the hood around the premises. The residents with the representations were those who lived behind the building. They had done all they could to abate the nuisance. The applicant confirmed that 85% of the delivery drivers they used were uber eats orders and they had a protocol with them regarding parking and reporting any unsatisfactory conduct which would allay any concerns relating nuisance. The applicant confirmed that they disconnected one of the extraction fans and placed a silencer on the operating fan.

 

The Sub-Committee noted and were concerned that the applicant and the resident’s relationship had experienced tension due to the issue of the extractor fan. As such, the Sub-Committee saw fit to note that the parties should stay in contact with the local authorities Noise Team to ensure that the extractor fan noise remained below the levels of a statutory nuisance.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the granting of the licence with the agreed conditions would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 5 and 6.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, with the extensive conditions agreed, meant that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.

 

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: