Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the application had been made in the name of the company. The sole director of the company was the applicant. The Sub-Committee was noted that, at the time of the application, there were two directors of the company but there was now one. An application had been submitted to amend the designated premises supervisor and the police had no objection.

The local resident stated that there had been a previous application that had been refused and she did not see any substantial changes to this application. They managed the premises across the road and customers of this premises could not be controlled. She did not consider that parties dispersing at one or two o’clock in the morning was suitable for residents. Rubbish and cigarette butts left outside had never been addressed. She could not see how alcohol with a large group of customers would benefit the community. In the summer the noise from premises was very loud. The applicants had said that they would lower the external shutter to reduce the noise but she had concerns that this would be a fire risk. If the shutter needed to be lowered due to noise from customers this would mean that they could not control their customers. They would allow four smokers at the front of the venue but this was a very small area and had not yet been given planning permission. She considered that the licensee could not abide by Covid rules, would be unlikely to follow other rules and the application should be rejected.

In response to questions, the resident stated that the bar was open during lockdown with a half opened shutter. She stated that she saw customers inside the premises and even if the applicant stated that they were not customers, they should not have had other people outside the household inside the premises. The resident stated that there were often two or three people outside the premises and they started to migrate along from the doorway to outside residents houses. There was rubbish left outside and dumped outside a nearby street sign. Rubbish was increasing and rats had been seen.

The applicant stated that she understood that things were frustrating for the resident but she did not think that the issues mentioned related to this premises. The premises was open in early November but served alcohol with food. They were trying to better their offering, were moving away from christenings and weddings and would remove live music from the application so as not to cause disturbance.  This would be a quiet family restaurant, where alcohol was served with a meal and would not stay open later than 11pm. During the time that they were open in early November, there had been no complaints. They had not been open during lockdown. Workmen had been in the premises who had been fixing leaks. Covid rules had been abided by. The other Director was in a high risk category, was unwell and that is why he was not present at the meeting. Air conditioning and extractor fans had been installed and the noise escape had been checked. They only required background music.

In response to questions, the applicant outlined the licensing objectives. She stated that, with regard to crime and disorder they had security at the front of the premises and had a list of patrons; regarding public safety, alcohol would be with food; regarding public nuisance they would ask the customers dispersed quietly and signs would be erected as a reminder and lastly they would operate Challenge 25 and would not allow children in the café after 6pm without a parent. She informed the Sub-Committee that all involved in the business were high risk from Covid so would not break the rules. The previous Director was her father and he has been removed from the business. She was the sole director and both her and her father had invested in the business. She was in the process of obtaining her personal licence. The previous director had been removed from the business as it was causing him illness and it was a family decision that she would take over.  This was her only business. She had worked in the bar at university for two and half years but this was her first experience in a restaurant.  She stated that her father had lots of experience and would presumably take back the reins if he got better following his recent illness. They had opened the premises at the start of November using Temporary Events Notices. She had mentioned to one resident that she would be open for the five days. Music would be played at a low volume and there would be no loitering. She had not worked in Zara’s Café. She had not been aware of any complaints over the five days.

The resident stated that she had not addressed any issues from the previous application that was refused. Many customers were older men. When the premises was open in November it had appeared to be quite full even until close.

The applicant stated that the staff at the restaurant were amazing and she would be working with her cousin who had five years’ experience. It was intended to be a luxury family restaurant and they had not broken rules and could show CCTV footage as evidence. Their customers were all ages and not just older men. They had put their heart and soul into this business.

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 Coronavirus Act 2020 and it was facilitated by Zoom.

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  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 operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

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

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the resident that the premises had been open to patrons despite Covid regulations as she had witnessed customers through a half open shutter sitting and eating inside. She observed that the failure to comply with Covid 19 regulations would be reflected in a failure to manage the licensed premises appropriately. She also stated that were ongoing issues with rubbish, deliveries and noise in Hornsey Road and these needed addressing if the licence were to be granted. She emphasised that this was a cumulative impact area and that one more licensed premises would exacerbate existing problems. 

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant that the application was made in the company name and that she was now sole director. She confirmed that she was aware of the four licensing objectives and stated that this was to be a family style restaurant business catering for local residents and that food would accompany any alcohol purchase. She confirmed she had two and half years’ experience working in hospitality; however, not in a management capacity. She stated that her co-worker had hospitality experience and had young children to whom she would want to return to in the evening, meaning that the premises would not be open late. She confirmed that she had not yet acquired her personal licence.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had not adequately addressed the concerns raised by the resident and also had said nothing to rebut the presumption that a new licence would not be granted in a cumulative impact area. They were also concerned that she had little experience of managing a licensed premises, particularly in a challenging cumulative impact area, and that she had not acquired a personal licence at the time of the application.

The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the licence would not promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the application had not demonstrated the requisite standards of management and that the proposed use meant that the premises would add to the cumulative impact.

The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and in the public interest.