Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that two resident representations had been received. The applicant had written to them and one was now happy with the application but no response had been received from the other resident. The applicant had offered to meet with this resident. There had been an additional bundle from the applicant summarising the application sent to the Sub-Committee.

The Licensing Authority had received a revised condition relating to the outside area and was happy to withdraw with the amended wording to condition 26.

The applicant stated that this was a restaurant with normal hours and was not alcohol led.  Conditions had been agreed with Trading Standards, Police, Environmental Health and the Licensing Authority and was compliant with the licensing objectives. Two representations had been received from interested parties. One resident was happy with the information that had been provided. Resident two had been provided with additional information and all conditions, the witness statement and a petition in support.  He considered that all points had been addressed and the licence would not negatively impact on the area. This was a restaurant/café with modest hours. As the resident was not present they were unable to ask about their concerns but all the information provided should alleviate these.

In response to questions it was noted that there would be table service, alcohol would be sold with food, was a small part of the offer and there would be no vertical drinking. They wished to offer alcohol to those customers who wanted it with lunch and dinner. The applicant stated that they would be operating Challenge 25 and when questioned gave full details of how Challenge 25 would be operated.

In summary, the Licensing Authority informed the Sub-Committee that the plans submitted did need to be updated and a fire risk assessment needed to be carried out.

The applicant stated that the floor plans had been finalised and could be sent to the Licensing team shortly.  They had recently operated under a Temporary Events Notice. They had wanted to wait until the 19 July to ascertain the latest Covid restrictions before finalising the layout but this was now able to be provided.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Neza Bar Café, 296 Holloway Road, N7 6NJ be granted to allow:-

a)        To allow the sale of alcohol, on supplies only, Monday to Saturday from 11am until 11pm and from 12 noon until 11pm on Sunday.

b)        The premises to be open to the public, Monday to Saturday from 6am to 11.30pm and Sunday from 8am to 11.30pm

2)  Conditions detailed on pages 87 to 89 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following amendments:-

·                Condition 26 to read. Customers must not consume food or drinks outside or in the vicinity of the premises, unless in an external seating area permitted by Islington Council;

·                The submission of an updated premises plan to include the location of all fire safety equipment.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting 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 and Finsbury 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. Possible exemptions apply to the Holloway and Finsbury CIA Policy where premises are not alcohol led and are within the framework hours.

Two local resident submitted representations.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that conditions had been agreed by the applicant with the Noise Team and the Police.

The Licensing Authority had made written representations. At the hearing the Licensing Authority informed the Sub-Committee that it had withdrawn their representations as a condition (Condition 26 above) had been agreed with the applicant.

The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises would be run as a restaurant and that alcohol would be ancillary to food. It further noted that vertical drinking would not be permitted. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operating schedule demonstrated high standards of management and that the proposed use, with the extensive conditions agreed, meant that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence with the agreed and imposed conditions was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and in the public interest.