Agenda item

In response to questioning by the Chair, the applicants stated that they did not need legal representation. 

The licensing officer reported that an application had been submitted in November 2014 for licensable activities until 04:00 am.  Following a closure notice and discussions with the police an amended application was submitted in February 2015.

The noise officer summarised the list of noise incidents detailed on pages 139 of the agenda.  They requested that the application be refused due to the poor management of the premises.

The police officer reported that this area was a strain on police resources.  There were a number of incidents which could be linked to the venue as detailed in the representation and it was considered that there were also a large number of other offences that might be linked.  The management history had been shambolic and there had been no evidence of good management standards.  He asked that the application be refused, however, should the application be granted he requested that the twenty one police conditions as detailed in the report be applied to the licence.

The applicants stated that since the noise incidents in August and September there had been a restructuring.  The brothers had undertaken training.  Cameras had been installed and there had been no incidents.  They had a good relationship with neighbours and had done everything they needed to do.  They knew the area and had learnt by their mistakes.  Late hours had been a problem but in the last two months they had closed early and there had been no incidents. 

In response to questions it was noted that the structure of management was now different to the previous business.  A well trained brother had been brought into the business. They wanted a licence until 1 am so the community could watch football together.  This was no longer an advice centre and was now a bar. Other bars caused problems in the area.  They would control noise by asking people to be quiet.  They had not received a reply regarding their planning permission application. They had not realised that they needed to obtain a licence.  They had personal licences and would be applying for SIA licences. The noise would be from the TV and had a controlled volume.  There was no intention to hold parties or to have amplifying equipment.

In summary, the police stated that two or three venues in the area kept the police very busy and each week they were in the area due to ongoing issues.  These incidents could not be proven to be linked with the Red Sea but they could not say that their customers had not been involved.

The applicant reported that their brother had been brought into the business and he was very experienced.  There had been no problems over the past two months.  They would take on board all the conditions and they had cancelled their late night hours as this had caused problems.  They asked that the licence be granted until 01:00 hours.

RESOLVED that

The application for a new premises licence in respect of Red Sea, 196a Seven Sisters Road, N4 3NX 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 noise officer that there had been complaints about noise going back to 2010 including amplified music at 03:40am.  The police stated that the venue was a strain on police resources and listed a number of incidents of drunken disorder, common assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm.  The licensing authority expressed concerns about standards of management.  The applicants explained that their brother, who had experience of management had been brought in.  There had been no recent incidents and there had been a good relationship with the neighbours for the last two months.

The Sub-Committee considered that there had been a change in the use of the premises to a bar from an advice centre offering tea, coffee and sandwiches to Eritreans. 

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Finsbury Park/Holloway 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.

In accordance with Licensing Policy 7, the Sub-Committee noted the cumulative impact that the proliferation of late night venues and retailers in the borough is having on the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine the licensing objectives of crime and disorder and public nuisance. The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the application if granted, would add to the cumulative impact area.  The applicant did not show any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the application.

It was proportionate and in the public interest to refuse the application.