Agenda item

The licensing officer advised that this item had been adjourned from July 2020. This was to ascertain the planning position regarding the premises, for the licensing officer to make a site visit, for details of the noise complaints and to ascertain dimensions and use of the areas in the premises. In addition, the residents wished to know if the applicant was involved in managing other premises in the road. The resident present at this meeting had not been present at the previous meeting. It was noted that the premises had a new name, Paradiso Deli. A revised plan of the premises was circulated during the meeting.

In response to questions, the Licensing officer confirmed that, at the last meeting, the applicant had stated that he had planning permission as the structure was already there and he had not carried out the work, however, the applicant was the leaseholder when the works had been done.

The planning officer advised that a retrospective planning application had been submitted for works to the premises which was being rejected and planning had asked the applicant to submit a full planning application.

Noise complaints had been logged and visits made. Details were at Appendix 6 of the report.

In response to questions, it was noted that, at the previous meeting the applicant had stated that the front had already been set back whilst the resident present had said that he had carried out the works.  The applicant stated that he managed two premises, numbers 163 and 230.  The applicant stated that the work to the frontage had already been carried out when he had taken over the lease and due to technical reasons the lease had to be backdated to July as the previous tenants had defaulted with the landlord. The applicant had been asked if he would take over responsibility of the lease from 1 July and he had agreed.  He stated that the works at the front were carried out by January 2019. The licensing officer stated that it was his understanding that the lease was taken over in July 2019 and the works were carried out over December 2019/January 2020. He confirmed that the applicant managed the business on the other side of the road. The applicant stated that there had been no incidents at his premises at 163 Hornsey Road.  He was asked about the procedure regarding the sale of alcohol to those who appeared to be underage.  He stated that he would ask their age and not serve alcohol to underage persons and would consult their parents if they were present. He was asked what other actions he would take and he had nothing further to add.  This would be a walk in venue for those over 25 years of age only and he served only those over 25 years of age as youngsters caused problems and he didn’t let them in.

In summary, the resident objector stated that she had evidence that the work to the frontage had been finished in February 2020. The applicant’s premises at number 163 had anti-social behaviour issues with customers shouting at 1- 2am in the morning. Customers of these premises were mainly men and it was not a welcoming venue. She was concerned that this venue would be the same. She considered that the applicant had lied and did not consider that he was of good character.

The applicant stated that he had no incidents over ten years and decent people attended his premises.  He provided what customers wanted.  He adhered to policies.  He wished to run a family restaurant and did not want a very late venue. The licensing officer had visited the premises.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Hermil island Lounge, 230 Hornsey Road, N7 7LL be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting was held under regulations made under the Coronovirus Act 2020 and it was facilitated by Zoom.

This item had been adjourned after being part heard to find the answers to questions about the planning position regarding the front porch, alleged noise nuisance due to construction works, plans to the premises and for the licensing officer to carry out a site visit. The same Sub-Committee were in attendance and had listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material including the updated information. The applicant had been in attendance previously but was no longer represented by his licensing consultant therefore the Sub-Committee continued with the hearing by asking questions of the objector and the applicant who were then able to summarise.

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  The particular problems of this area are adverse impacts on licensing objectives associated with late night venues and alcohol related anti-social behaviour especially as a result of drinking in the street. It is a commercially busy area. There is concern about the impact of the licensing objective of public nuisance associated with alcohol in the area.

Licensing policy 2 stated that in considering applications for new licences the licensing authority will take into account whether the premises are located in an area of cumulative impact, the location of the premises and character of the area, the potential impact on residents living in close proximity to the premises, past compliance history of current management and whether the applicant is able to demonstrate commitment to a high standard of management.

Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. Licensing policy 3, paragraph 56, states that applications with comprehensive operating schedules which are not alcohol led and hours of operation consistent with framework hours may be able to demonstrate that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

Six local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee heard an update from the licensing officer about the status of the planning permission and that there was still no consent for the frontage. The planning officer was in attendance and was able to clarify the position.  The applicant had submitted a certificate for lawfulness but he had now been asked to submit a full planning application. The licensing officer stated that residents were concerned about the applicant’s involvement in other local licensed premises, in particular 236 Hornsey Road. In response to questions from the Councillors, the applicant stated that he had an involvement in 163 and 230 Hornsey Road but not 236 Hornsey Road.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, the licensing officer confirmed that, at the last hearing, the applicant had said that he had planning permission for the works carried out to the front of the premises. The applicant had said that the frontage was already there when he had taken over and he had not done the works.  However, he was in fact the leaseholder at that time. The Sub-Committee was very concerned at this apparent inconsistency by the applicant.

In answer to questions, the applicant explained that his lease, which was dated July 2019 had been backdated and he was not actually in the premises at the time. His solicitor could confirm this. However, his solicitor was not present at the Sub-Committee meeting. The Sub-Committee were concerned that the lease was therefore false but the applicant explained that the previous lessee had a problem with tenants who were in arrears and wanted to evict them. The works to the frontage were carried out in December 2019/January 2020. The licensing officer summarised that his understanding was that the lease was dated July 2019, the works were carried out December 2019/January 2020 but the applicant physically entered the premises after that date. The applicant accepted that he was responsible from July 2019.

The Sub-Committee asked the applicant about his understanding of the licensing objectives. Specifically what would he do if a underage person asked for alcohol. The applicant said if the parents were around he would consult them. He would not serve alcohol because of Challenge 25. He made no reference to asking for ID or to entering a refusal in a refusals book and these were conditions he had proposed on his operating schedule.

Licensing policy 8 states that, when assessing the applicants ability to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management the licensing authority will take into account whether the applicant can demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of best practice, can demonstrate knowledge of the licensing objectives and their responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003, is able to run their business lawfully and in accordance with good business practice and can demonstrate a track record of compliance with legal requirements.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had given answers which seemed confusing and inconsistent and he had not referred to measures that he himself had suggested in his operating schedule. As this was a cumulative impact area and there were particular problems with public nuisance in the locality, high standards of management at these premises were essential to avoid an adverse impact on the licensing objective of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied with the answers that had been given by the applicant himself and was not confident that he would adhere to high standards of management at the premises. In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee determined to refuse the license, considering this appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and in the public interest.