Agenda item

The Sub-Committee noted that English was not the first language of the premises licence holder, but he had colleagues present who would interpret for him where necessary.

The Licensing Officer stated that there was no additional information to report. The review of the premises had been triggered automatically by an application from the Metropolitan Police Service for a closure notice under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which was issued by Highbury Magistrates’ Court on 30 July 2015.

The Police representative reported that a number of incidents, most often occurring very late at night or early in the morning, had taken place at or near the premises and there had been breaches of conditions associated with CCTV operation.  The area was a hotspot for violence and Addis Ababa was the only licensed premises in the area. The Police  were therefore of the view that Addis Ababa was responsible for most of the crime in the area after midnight.  He pointed out that, rather than a revocation of the licence, a closure order had been issued by the Court to afford the licence holder and management an opportunity to put their affairs in order. The Police had recommended that, if the premises was permitted to operate after the eight week closure order, the opening hours should be reduced and a number of other conditions applied to the licence, which were detailed in the Police’s written representation in pages 148 to 150 of the agenda.

The Licensing Authority’s representative referred to the Authority’s written representation on page 151 of the agenda and stated that revocation would not have been proportionate but, if the Sub-Committee agreed, it would be necessary to look at the conditions on the licence and to ensure that there was no sale of alcohol after midnight. The premises should also be asked to provide a more diverse offer by, for instance, selling meals.

The premises licence holder’s representative referred to the number of findings against the venue, detailed on page 137 of the agenda, which had lead to a Judge making the finding that closure of the premises was necessary “to prevent the

behaviour, nuisance and disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring”. He asserted that the Police could have informed the Licensing Authority that a review was necessary at any stage, before the closure order was applied for, but had not. He stated that his client took the problems seriously and accepted that he must tighten up on the persons entering and exiting the premises. His client intended to limit the numbers in the premises and to keep a list of those allowed into the premises, or their acquaintances, by way of an informal membership list.

The premises licence holder’s representative said that it was clear that the Magistrate who made the closure order had not wanted the premises to close. The premises owner had spent a lot of money on the premises. He did not agree with the proposal that only those persons eating in the premises could drink alcohol, since that would be likely to close the entertainment provision in the basement of the premises. He went on to state that some of the evidence from the Police was disputed by the licence holder at the Court hearing and that CCTV was supplied on every occasion it was requested by the Police.  He pointed out that there were two 24 hour off licences operating nearby to Addis Ababa, that some trouble had been caused by adjacent premises and that there was friction between the two. He concurred that there was nuisance caused, but not of a serious kind. Addis Ababa offered services for local people.  As far as the proposed conditions were concerned, his client would accept all of them. He would introduce a strict drug policy, keep a log of all persons on the premises and would ensure that the personal licence holder was on the premises when it was open and ensure sufficient numbers of door supervisers.  He asked that the premises be permitted to operate beyond midnight and that when the premises was open and selling alcohol after 11pm that there be two door supervisers present. He said that the premises licence holder had asked that the premises be permitted to remain open until 2.00am. If the new conditions were not sufficient to maintain order at the premises, there would likely be a review after a few months of operation.  He suggested that it would be draconian to require the premises to close at midnight.  The premises licence holder would appreciate some time to prove that the licence holder could manage the premises satisfactorily and adopting the new conditions would alleviate the  problems complained of.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, the premises licence holder’s representative confirmed that they agreed with all of the recommendations suggested by the Police and the Local Authority, apart from that requiring them to make the sale of alcohol anciliary to food.  The premises licence holder’s representative maintained that the problems at the venue were caused by people arriving late and not by those drinking there. A strict door policy and the presence of door supervisers should help to alleviate these problems.  In response to a member of  the Sub-Committee as to whether he though the problems would have occurred if the premises was a restaurant, the premises licence holder’s representative stated that it was hard to say, though likely to have happened. There was further discussion as to whether the premises would be operating as an “informal club” which was open to anyone, or a private members’ club, where patrons were required to show an ID card and membership number.  A member of the Sub-Committee pointed out that all of the incidents complained about, except for one, had happened after midnight and that there was a direct link with Addis Ababa, which was open at that time. He maintained that, if the premises management were taking the issues seriously, they should be more enthusiastic about a proposed midnight closure of the premises. 

Members remained concerned about poor management of the premises, that the premises management  had not addressed Police representations, that the premises was selling alcohol to people who were already drunk, that there was no clear dispersal policy for people leaving the premises and that the licensee did not seem to understand his responsibilities. A colleague of the premises licence holder, who was also present at the meeting, stated that the licence holder fully understood the Licensing Policy requirements, that he would not serve someone who was already drunk and would ask them to leave the premises.  He would work with the Police and ensure that two door supervisers operated at the premises. He described the venue as providing traditional food, live or recorded music and alcohol and said that the problems came from the persons who were associated with a competitor and who came wanting to cause trouble. He said that the owner was a singer and a decent person.The premises licence holder’s representative stated that the serious ness of the situation had been brought home to his client as his business was now closed until 24 September 2015, but he was still having to pay rent.

In summing up, the Police representative stated that the premises could not be permitted to operate as it currently was, that its hours needed to be reduced to midnight, that door supervisers should be employed at the premises and that staff needed to be trained to ensure that alcohol was not served to persons who were already drunk.  If the licence holder was permitted to keep his licence, the additional conditions proposed by the Police and Local Authority should be included on the licence.  The Licensing Authority’s representative said that the closure order had provided an opportunity for the licence holder to review the way his premises was operating and had heard the points made by members at this meeting about methods of managing persons coming into the premises. She suggested that a reduction in operating hours and the inclusion of robust conditions on the licence was the way forward for the premises.

The premises licence holder’s representative said that the problems associated with the premises seemed to emanate from people arriving late, already drunk and intent on causing trouble. A strong door policy could have alleviated some of these problems and any door supervisers should have turned away the people who were likely to cause trouble. He proposed a further condition to the licence as follows: “That persons entering the premises be required to produce an ID document, the details of which the premises manager will copy and retain as a record of evidence on a system”

In response to a question from the Chair, the premises licence holder confirmed that he had been satisfied with the interpreting facilities provided by his colleagues.

RESOLVED:

That the premises licence in respect ofAddis Ababa, 192 Seven Sisters Road, N4 3NX be modified to include the conditions suggested by the Police, as outlined on pages 148 to 150 of the agenda which, with the following amendments, would be applied to the licence:

i) the permitted opening and licensing hours for all alcohol at the premises to be Sunday to Thursday from 10:00 to 23:00 and on Friday and Saturday from 10:00 to 00:00

ii) the permitted terminal hours for all other activities at the premises shall be Sunday to Thursday to 23:00 and on Friday and Saturday to 00:00.

iii) a period of 30 minutes for drinking up before closing hours to ensure that the premises closes at the required time

iv) No vertical drinking shall be permitted

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 noted that this review had been triggered by the Court making a Closure Order on the application of the Police under Section 80 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. The Court had made this Order until 24^th September 2015 so that the management of the premises could take steps to get their house in order. Neither the Licensing Authority, nor the Police, sought a revocation of the licence but the Police conditions, with the addition of no vertical drinking, were accepted by the Sub-Committee as proportionate and appropriate to the Licensing Objectives of Crime and Disorder and Public Nuisance and in the public interest.  The restriction on licensing hours by the Sub-Committee was imposed after considering that almost all of the serious incidents of assault had occurred after midnight and the long opening hours had been shown to be a cause of anti-social behaviour in and around these premises.