Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the hours applied for late night refreshment were in excess of those permitted under planning permission.

The police reported that the applicant had accepted a CCTV condition but had refused to amend the hours applied for.  The premises were in the Angel cumulative impact area which was significant regarding its late night economy.  Matters had not improved and this area was a hotspot for anti-social behaviour.  It had been necessary to employ late night patrols in the area.  Another licence granted would exacerbate the problems that the police were trying to control.

In response to questions, it was noted that this particular stretch of road was the busiest part in Upper Street for anti-social behaviour.  The late night levy team patrolled this area because of the problems.  The police considered that this would be another late night venue which would encourage customers to remain in the area rather than to go home.

The licensing authority was unable to attend the meeting.  The licensing officer read out a statement from the licensing authority.  He reported that their representation was on page 27 of the agenda.  The licensing authority had received no further information to change their recommendation.  Licensed premises paid a late night levy to minimise the impacts of premises and the licensing policy provided guidelines on how to frame applications. The applicant had not reported on the arrangements for customers not to cause nuisance.  A late night venue would encourage more people to remain in the area.  The recommendation of the licensing authority was to refuse the application unless the applicant could convince the Sub-Committee that there would be no impact and the authority requested that, should the licence be granted, the hours remain within the licensing policy guidelines.

The applicant’s agent stated that the applicant had owned a neighbouring restaurant for seven years.  Two other premises nearby were open until 2 am.  The owner had invested in the premises and he had not known that the cumulative impact policy restricted the hours to midnight and 1am.  The owner needed his business to be viable and on a similar footing to other premises. The applicant offered a condition for a door supervisor.  His client was not serving alcohol.  There were other premises that closed at 3am and his business would not hold people in the area. An SIA door supervisor would be on the premises from 11pm until close on Friday and Saturday.  There had been no issues with the neighbouring premises that the applicant owned during the last seven years.  He had assisted with police investigations with the use of his CCTV.  He was flanked by bars and he was not able to control these customers, although a door supervisor would vet customers and would help move people on.  Sufficient signage would be erected.  The entrance to apartments would be roped off to prevent anti-social behaviour in the alley way.  There had been five TENs until 3am and there had been no incidents, an indication that the premises were being run properly and by an experienced licensee.  There was a CCTV condition even though alcohol was not being sold.  There was a refusals book which covered incidents.  The seating area would be closed off after 11pm.  This was a Greek take away shop and customers would not come to the area for this premises but food would allow them to dissipate over the evening.  The cumulative impact area referred to premises selling alcohol and not food.  They would try to ensure that neighbours were not disturbed.  They offered a reduction in the hours requested - Thursday to Saturday until 2am and Sunday to Wednesday 11:30.  50% of income was taken after 11pm. Examples of signage and the incident book were tabled for members information.

In response to questions it was stated that the SIA door supervisor would not allow customers in who appeared drunk and would ask them to move on.  The applicant’s agent stated that if customers were too drunk they would be asked to move on.  If customers were slightly drunk then it might be good for them to eat.  It was noted that, although need was not a consideration under the Licensing Act, a terminal hour of 2 am would allow the business to be viable. The applicant’s agent did not consider that there was noise in the area late at night.  Customers were given food and then walked away.  He did not consider that the representations submitted gave an accurate description of the noise levels. The incident book for age restricted products, which had been tabled for members, was generic and was just used as an example. They were aware of the cumulative impact policy but did not consider that it applied to the premises as they were not selling alcohol. During the seven years he had owned the next door premises but had not attended residents groups.  No residents had approached the applicant about the application.  There had been temporary event notices used over five weekends until 3am.  There had been no complaints about his premises.

In summary the police stated that they receive approximately 20 temporary event notices each week for events that, if permanent, would be objected to.  They had asked the applicant on the 16 June, to consider a restriction in hours to reflect those proposed in the licensing policy.

The applicant’s agent stated that it would be necessary to have at least until 2am From Thursday to Saturday, although he was aware that the policy stated Friday and Saturday only.  There was another premises within the cumulative impact area that had been recently granted a 2 am licence.  There had been no incidents in his other premises next door.  He asked for an extension of hours from Thursday – Saturday and core hours during the rest of the week and with an SIA condition he considered that there would be no negative impact.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Holy Pitta, 74D Upper Street, London, N1 0NY be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee considered the written submissions of the two residents and Councillor as well as the written application and verbal submissions made by the Police and the Licensing Authority.

The premises were situated in a cumulative impact area. Licensing Policy 2 provides that the Cumulative Impact policy is not absolute and that the circumstances of each application will be considered on its merits. 

Licensing Policy 8 provides that when dealing with new and variation applications, the Licensing Authority will give more favourable consideration to applications with closing times of 11pm Sunday to Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine 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 noted the representations of the Police in relation to the crime and disorder and public nuisance objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the police had attempted to get the applicant to agree to reduce the hours requested in the application and that this had not been successful.

The applicant, through his representative, confirmed to the Sub-Committee that they were not prepared to reduce the hours to earlier than 2am on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The submission was that the business would not be viable if they were to do so.

Although there were measures within the operating schedule to mitigate against possible crime, disorder and public nuisance, the Sub-Committee concluded that these were insufficient to ensure that the premises would not undermine the licensing objectives.

The cumulative impact area issue was not addressed at all in the written application and the applicant failed to address it his verbal submissions. The applicant was under the impression that this was not necessary as the licence being applied for was a late night refreshment licence. The applicant was wrong on this point and was given an opportunity to address this issue by the committee but failed to do so.

Under the circumstances, the Sub-Committee found that the applicant failed to demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee accordingly concluded that it was both reasonable and proportionate to refuse the application.