Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the application had been deferred from July to allow the applicant to apply for planning permission.  A3 had been granted except for a proposal regarding the extraction fan which would be determined in March 2016.  It was noted that the noise conditions had been accepted.  The acoustic condition which had been tabled and would be interleaved with the agenda papers had also been agreed.

The Sub-Committee moved into private session under paragraph 7, of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider an incident which had taken place at the premises on the 12 December 2015.

The Sub-Committee noted the evidence given by the police officer in private session and the response given by the applicant

On return the applicant’s representative stated that this was an application for a new licence.  One of the joint Directors had seven years’ experience running a coffee shop within Chapel Market and would be applying for a personal licence.  There had been a temporary event notice from the 14 January to the 20 January and there had been no incidents.  All staff would be trained.  Additional conditions were tabled at the meeting which would be interleaved with the agenda papers. Restaurant conditions were offered.  There would be no bar and no take out was agreed. There were generally no single people at the restaurant as it catered mainly for couples, music was background only and there had been no noise complaints.  There had been one complaint about odour on the 5 November.  The use of the first floor terrace was prohibited.  The restaurant would be trading within framework hours.  There would be 16 CCTV cameras on the premises.  There had been a one off incident in December.  The designated premises supervisor would be replaced and it was stated that the premises would not increase the cumulative impact. 

In response to questions it was noted that there would be 70 covers in the restaurant.  One of the Directors who would be taking over as licensee should the licence be granted was asked a number of questions regarding how he would mitigate the cumulative impact.  He stated he would train his staff in entry and how they should serve at tables.  He would not serve too much alcohol.  He would also check tables. He would operate Challenge 21, put up signage and not allow glass or bottles outside so neighbours would not be disturbed. It was noted that the premises would operate as a restaurant and not a take away.

In summary, the police stated that it would be better to have a new application rather than a transfer of the licence.  He stated that he had seen the CCTV relating to an incident in December 2015 and his version differed from the applicant’s version.  He considered that the licence should not be granted.

The applicant’s representative stated that he would transfer the licence if granted.  Conditions would mean that this grant would not add to the cumulative impact.  The premises would not be a bar and would therefore have less of a cumulative impact.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises at the Mediterranean Restaurant, 61 Chapel Market, N1 9ER 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 took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Kings Cross 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.

The Sub-Committee noted home office guidance, paragraph 9.12 that states that the Sub-Committee should accept all reasonable and proportionate representations made by the police.  Under licensing policy 10 when assessing the applicant’s ability to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management, the licensing Sub-Committee took into account whether the applicant was able to demonstrate a track record of compliance with legal requirements and was able to run his business lawfully and in accordance with good business practice.

There had already been a serious incident on the premises before any licence was granted.  The applicant had behaved unwisely and had not managed the situation well.  There was no evidence of any improvement in management standards. 

The Sub-Committee considered that the granting of a new licence would undermine the licensing objective of crime and disorder. Further, under licensing policy 2 the premises were in an area of cumulative impact.  Granting the licence would be likely to add to the cumulative impact.