Agenda item

The applicant was not present at the meeting.  The interested party was in attendance and in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, the Sub-Committee agreed to hold the hearing in the absence of the applicant.

The licensing officer reported that the premises had planning permission for A3 use since 1995. 

The noise officer reported that there had been a number of noise complaints between January and March 2015 and asked that if the licence was granted, the conditions as detailed in the report should be applied to the licence.

The police officer reported that the premises had been visited and was set up as a late night bar and it seemed, taking the amount of stock and noise complaints into account, had been operating without a licence.

The licensing authority reported that the premises currently had a licence until 7pm.  There were concerns about the licence being breached and non-attendance at the meeting did not help allay these concerns.  The licensing authority supported refusal of the licence.

The local resident reported that she lived in the adjacent block and noise problems had started about a year ago from music and also from customers gathering outside on the pavement.  She felt threated and intimidated by customers and had been woken up at different times of the night by noise. Extractor fans were also left on until the early hours of the morning.

In response to questions it was noted that customers were allowed in the premises by ducking beneath shutters.  Customers left between 01:00 - 03:00 hours in their cars well after normal café hours.

RESOLVED that

The application for a premises licence variation in respect of Titanic Café, 306 Holloway Road, N7 7NJ be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant was not present at the meeting and had given no reason.  The interested party was in attendance and in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, the Sub-Committee agreed to hold the hearing in the absence of the applicant.

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material, including the information supplied by the applicant. 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 and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that, applications for premises licence variations 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 Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that the premises appeared to be operating as a bar before a licence had been granted.  The noise officer had received a number of complaints from residents over the past few months about late night loud music and had written to the applicants.  The licensing authority observed that the application would effectively change a café into a bar and expressed concern about the existing management of the premises.

The interested party said that nuisance had increased enormously this year with noise from extractor fans in the evening, drunken people leaving abusing residents and noise caused by loud music from the premises.

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 objective of 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.