Agenda item

The Chair of the Sub-Committee stated for the record that he had worked previously with the applicant’s representative, however he would deal with the application with the same independence as he always used when considering applications.

He also noted the planning issues detailed in the papers and stated that the applicant could seek an adjournment at any time and if there was no request, the members would consider the application on its merits.

The licensing officer stated that the licence holder had arranged a meeting which a few residents had attended.  One resident had withdrawn their objection following this meeting. He reported that the residents who had attended had been broadly happy.  Emails had been received in support but these had not met the representation deadline.  The current licence had later hours than the current application and this licence could be used if this application was rejected. However, the applicant would have to put the previous layout back as the change in plan was significant.

The Sub-Committee noted that there was a planning application that had been refused and which was currently going through an appeal process.  The planning team were currently holding off enforcement until the appeal had been determined.  If the licensing application was granted this would need to be revisited. 

The licensing authority stated that their representation was still maintained.  There were outstanding planning and building regulation issues and they did not have confidence in the licensee to promote the licensing objectives given the scant regard given to legislation. The additional area applied for was double the size of the current licensed area.

The planning officer advised that the applicant had been served an enforcement notice relating to the upper floors. A retrospective application had been refused and an appeal lodged. It was noted that if the licence was granted then more urgent enforcement action may need to be considered in terms of noise nuisance.

The interested parties raised concerns regarding the scale and impact of the property. The property was unlawfully built. It was stated that it was clear in licensing policy 1 that planning consent was expected to be in place.  The application had been refused on the grounds of amenity and it was considered that this was relevant to the licensing application.  They considered that this raised concerns relevant to the promotion of the licensing objectives. They stated that the works had increased the area four fold. This applicant had stated that this was a family restaurant but it could result in 300 covers with over 900 customers many of which would attend by car.  The facilities were not suitable for live music and the applicant had shown a general disregard for planning and procedure and the application should be refused. The air conditioning units had been tested and it had been necessary for the noise team to visit.  Opening hours were longer than the extractor fans were expected to operate.

In response to questions and concerns that this was being called a family restaurant when the sale of alcohol was originally applied for until 3am, it was noted that this term was introduced by the applicant following concerns raised to noise nuisance and music. There was concern expressed that promises could be made by the applicant but hours requested were similar to nightclub hours.

The applicant’s representative stated that the current licence allowed for opening hours to 3.30am but this application was only until 1.30am on Friday and Saturday.  There had been considerable expense by the applicant and the premises was previously a significant eyesore.

The architect stated that this development had been inherited.  There were currently three enforcement notices outstanding. One for the UPVC windows, second, for the conversion to flats on the upper floors and third, on the mansard roof.  An application had been made for a rearrangement of flats to be compliant and this had yet to be determined.  The applicant had engaged and had submitted two pre-applications.  It was noted that elements of the restaurant may be unlawful but the bar and restaurant did not have enforcement action against them.  There was an application for the air conditioning unit.

The general manager stated that he had previously managed 24 hour venues with 500 customers.  There was no application made for dancing and this could not therefore be a covert nightclub.  The current premises hours were until 3am and this application was until 1.30am on Friday and Saturday with hours to the sale of alcohol until 1am.  Recorded music would be until midnight on Friday and Saturday and live music would be until 10.30pm.  If this application was refused the applicant would need to consider the options.  There had been a £1.3 million investment in the premises with 200 menus and wine lists.  The hours in the application had been reduced prior to objections being received.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that an option, should the application be refused, would be to return to the original layout, although this would not be an option that they would want to do.  It was noted that the area that was currently licensed was only part of the premises. The smoking area was proposed to be on the public highway and the furthest from the residential area.  There had been another partner involved in the project and most building work had been carried out by himself.  Once the existing problems had been realised the applicant took advice and submitted new plans.  All of the previous wrongs they had tried to legalise.  Live music would only be unamplified and would not be played in the outside area.  They would agree to reduce the hours for live music and it could not be heard, even from some parts of the restaurant. Concern was expressed that the hours requested for a family restaurant would be until 1.30am. In response the applicant stated that the premises would not always be open until this time but they would want to have the option available.  They did not expect full capacity.  It was noted that the premises had been advertised as being open until 1.30am but this had now been removed. The owner had purchased the property in November 2018 and the structure was enclosed after this time. The previous partner had told them that he had applied for planning consent but he had not been truthful.  The General Manager stated that he had previous experience at Club Reina and Aquarium nightclub. It was noted that, at a review hearing in November 2017, the Licensing Sub-Committee had been concerned with the ability of the General Manager to manage Club Reina and had agreed the need for the general manager to leave the business. The general manager stated that there had not been a single issue with Club Reina following the review.  The police had no issues with him and he would not be granted a personal licence if they considered there was an issue with him. He stated that he was moving away from managing nightclubs as he now was starting a young family, although working at the nightclubs had given him a lot of experience.

In summary, the interested party raised concerns about the additional car parking issues.  She stated that enforcement action for the licensed area was only in abeyance.  This did not mean that the structure was lawful.  The conservatory had only been erected in the past two months whilst the new owner was in post.  When the noise from the extractor fans was heard the noise team were contacted and the noise team requested that the premises close.

The applicant’s representative stated that he did not want to encourage driving to the premises.  They had listened to the concerns and he stated that all concerns had been tackled and resolved.  Conditions were appropriate and dealt with the provision for a family restaurant.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Tetto’s Italian Kitchen, 313 Highbury New Park, N5 2LB 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.

Twenty-six local resident objections had been received and there was one objection from a local ward councillor.  Objections had also been received from the licensing authority, the police and the noise team.  Conditions had been agreed with the police and the noise team and their representations had therefore been withdrawn.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that there were concerns around public nuisance arising from the number of cars that would be driving to and from the premises, given the scale of the proposed premises. There had also been a failure to comply with planning requirements, giving rise to the service of several planning enforcement notices. The proposed licensed area had a substantially larger square footage than the current licensed area. The current owner of the premises was also the owner whilst the works that gave rise to the planning enforcement notices were carried out.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the licensing objectives would not be upheld as the applicant had not demonstrated acceptable standards of management to date and the owner had been either negligent in supervision or complicit in the applicant’s failure to comply with planning requirements during the recent works.

The Sub-Committee had to be confident that the applicant would comply with any licensing conditions imposed and was concerned about the impact on the surrounding area of the scale of the proposed licensed premises, which raised concerns that, without modification and without good standards of management, could give rise to public nuisance.

Taking Licensing Policy Number 1 into account, the Sub-Committee concluded that it was not satisfied that the licensing objectives would be upheld as, given the scale of the project, it had concerns around public nuisance combined with concerns relating to standards of management.