Skip to content

Agenda item

Zuzu, 367 Holloway Road, London, N7 0RN - New Premises Licence Application

Minutes:

The licensing officer reported that an additional representation had been sent to the sub-committee and interested parties and that the applicant had accepted the Trading Standards conditions on page 196 of the agenda.

 

The licensing authority raised concerns that although the premises was in the Holloway/Finsbury Park Cumulative impact area, this was not referenced in the operating schedule and the terminal hour was in excess of the policy hours with no explanation given for this.

 

The licensing authority provided an update on visits officers had made to the premises on Thursday 8 and Friday 9 November 2018. On 8 November, the officers visited the premises to advise the applicant that the TEN he had applied for in relation to the following weekend had not been approved. Whilst there, the officers found that alcohol was being sold without a licence. The applicant was also advised he was not permitted to sell alcohol on 9, 10 and 11 November as the TEN had not been approved. Officers advised that he could allow patrons to bring their own alcohol.

 

The licensing authority advised that officers revisited the premises on 9 November and customers were drinking alcohol and there was a beer tap providing the brand of beer the customers were drinking. The applicant advised them that the customers had brought the alcohol with them but was unable to produce the empty containers when asked. Officers noticed the till had recorded sales of the alcohol and the applicant was unable to explain this. The sub-committee was provided with a photo of the till recording and this was shown to the applicant.

 

The licensing authority had previously considered that the application could be viable with the conditions proposed but since the visits, questioned the management of the premises and considered that no responsibility was being taken. Therefore the licensing authority now suggested that the application should be refused.

 

Two residents were in attendance and they raised concern about noise from the premises that could be heard in their homes above the premises. They had complained to the applicant a number of times and despite assurances that this would be rectified, it had not been. One resident had called the noise out of hours team several times and following a visit from the noise team during a belly dancing evening at the premises, the speakers in the ceiling were no longer used. However, there was still no sound insulation in the ceiling and music, people speaking and furniture being moved could all be heard in the resident’s home. The resident raised concern about the applicant being untrustworthy and requested that the soundproofing that had been removed by the previous owners should be reinstated and approved by an independent expert.

 

The applicant stated that he had not made any changes to the ceiling or speaker system since buying the premises a year ago. He believed the premises had a licence when he bought it and raised concern that he had not been advised it had not at the time of purchase. He stated that he had bought the premises with good intentions. He had spent £160,000 refurbishing the premises but after a few months, discovered that the business was not making enough money to pay the bills and the bailiffs had visited. In the last few months he had held belly dancing nights. The dancing with music had taken place between 8pm and 8.15pm. He had not realised that the music was loud enough to affect the resident upstairs. The noise officer had visited and advised the applicant not to use the speakers in the ceiling and to buy a small stereo and place this on top of the counter. The applicant stated that he had done this and had used it since. However, he had now stopped holding the belly dancing evenings as they had not been profitable.  The applicant explained that he was struggling financially.

 

The applicant explained that he had cancer, had psoriasis and had recently had a heart attack. He had spent three months in hospital and was suffering from stress. He had been advised not to return to work so early but financially he had no option. He had two sons to support.

 

One of the applicant’s represeentatives stated that he had run the premises for 20 years prior to the applicant taking over. He had paid for the alcohol licence for the last ten years but a clerical error meant it was in the wrong name. The council had not visited the premises during this time.

 

The applicant raised concern that if he operated a bring your own alcohol scheme, people would drink more alcohol than if they were sold it on the premises. He stated that he was willing to work with neighbours and if he had no licence he feared he would have to close and would lose all his savings. He did not have the money to pay his VAT bill or rent. He had made a mistake playing loud music. The applicant explained that he had previously run a restaurant in Kensington Gardens and had worked for the National Trust.

 

The sub-committee stated they were sorry to hear about the applicant’s health problems. A member questioned why the applicant sold alcohol on 9 November when he was advised not to the previous day. The applicant stated that he had been advised to apply for a TEN. He had mixed up the days and had taken a nap in the office during which time the member of staff had sold two beers. He was shocked by this.

 

In response to a question from a member, the applicant stated that when he had applied for a licence he had copied across the details from the old one and had not changed anything.

 

The chair advised the applicant that selling alcohol without a licence was a serious matter. The applicant stated this was not done intentionally. This was the first time one of his TENs had been refused. He had not noticed the refusal notice.

 

The licensing authority confirmed that the TEN had not sought to sell alcohol on Thursday 8 November and so alcohol was sold that day without a licence. A member asked the applicant why he sold on Thursday 8 November without a licence and advised that he sometimes had a TENs for Thursdays. He stated that on Friday 9 November, the member of staff assumed that they had a licence as they sometimes had a TEN for Fridays.

 

The applicant stated that if the Sub-Committee considered he was not suitable to manage the premises, he would be unemployed. He was willing to do what he could. He confirmed that he held a personal licence.

 

The licensing authority summed up stating that the main issue concerned the applicant not taking responsibility. The noise conditions had been agreed and the noise officer considered that these were sufficient. The licensing authority were concerned that the applicant did not have an understanding of the importance of only selling alcohol with a licence. The advice of officers had not been followed.

 

One of the residents summed up stating that she was sorry to hear about the applicant’s health. When she had explained to the applicant that she would be obliged to complain in the event of noise issues, the applicant had said he would resolve the issues but he had not. She questioned why the website still said belly dancing took place and one of the applicant’s representatives said she had not had a chance to update the website. The interested party stated that she could not regard the applicant as trustworthy.

 

One of the applicant’s representatives, who had run the premises for 20 years, stated he was willing to go on the licence and could assist the applicant.

 

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Zuzu, 367 Holloway Road, London, N7 0RN be refused.

 

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 received updated information from the licensing authority following visits to the premises on 8 and 9 November 2018. The Licensing Sub-Committee were concerned that alcohol had been sold at the premises on 8 November when no TEN was in place. Further, and of greater concern, was that when officers returned to the premises on 9 November 2018 sales of alcohol had taken place. This was following advice that no alcohol should be sold when a licence was not in place and the applicant had been provided with this advice only the day before.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the explanation offered by the applicant that the sale on 9 November had been made by a female member of staff whilst he was in the office. However, the Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant had failed to ensure high standards of management at the premises, he had failed to action the advice provided by officers and had not taken responsibility to ensure that sales of alcohol did not take place on the premises whilst a licence was not in place.

 

The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the applicant had recently experienced health problems. However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not demonstrated high standards of management required under Licensing Policy 8. The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not understood the legal requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 and had not implemented advice given to him very recently by the Licensing Authority. Licensing Policy 8 states that the Licensing Authority is unlikely to grant a new premises licence unless there is significant improvement in management standards.

 

The Sub-Committee considered whether the imposition of conditions would promote the licensing objectives. However, as the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he could follow the advice of licensing officers the Sub-Committee were concerned that he would not be able to comply with the proposed conditions. Therefore, the imposition of conditions was not appropriate.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that in order to promote the licensing objectives, the application should be refused. The applicant had been witnessed to be selling alcohol without a licence on two occasions and his own actions had breached the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The Sub-Committee were not satisfied that the applicant would take the necessary steps to promote all the licensing objectives and therefore concluded that it was reasonable and proportionate to refuse the application.

 

 

Supporting documents: