Agenda item

The licensing officer introduced the applicant, his representative and the responsible authorities. He reported that since the application had been submitted the hours had been revised and a revised layout plan had been submitted. A planning consent had been circulated from the applicant. The Chair noted that the consent was dated 8 July 2021. The licensing officer reported that this outlined the permission for the barber shop and restaurant however, the issue regarding the temporary structure remained.

The Police stated that the applicant had submitted an alcohol application for the barber shop in August 2020. The police had visited in December 2020, during lockdown, and found four males smoking shisha at the rear of the premises. During a visit in January 2022, males were again found to be smoking shisha at the rear in an enclosed space. He stated that he had severe reservations in the granting of a licence. He had no confidence that the applicant would adhere to any of the conditions and he objected to the grant of the application.

The Licensing Authority stated that a penalty notice had been served on the applicant and the Sub-Committee would need to give consideration as to whether or not the applicant could comply with conditions and manage the premises lawfully in an area with a number of outlets. There were issues with Planning regarding the outside structure and a notice would be served. The hours proposed were within policy hours but there must be confidence in the ability of the applicant to manage the premises lawfully.

The Trading Standards officer stated that there had been an incident during December 2020 whilst the Coronavirus regulations were in force and businesses were not permitted to open. The service had received information that the business was open. Upon attending, officers could see at the rear of the building a semi-permanent structure which was enclosed and males smoking what appeared to be shisha. A fine was issued under the Covid Regulations and had been paid. Smoking indoors could have been punished in any event under the Health Act. The Sub-Committee needed to be sure that this was a responsible business.

In response to questions, the police stated that January 2022 was the second time that people had been found to be smoking in the rear premises. This was a very busy area which was saturated with bars and pubs. If the applicant could not comply he could not see how he could be trusted with an alcohol licence.  He had zero confidence in the applicant and the premises would be difficult to police. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises was in a cumulative impact area.

The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant had accepted that he had received a fixed penalty notice. This application had been revised from the original application and only applied to the middle area of the premises, which was the restaurant area. He had been given the fixed penalty two years ago. They expected to have a lot of conditions. The premises had planning approval. This was not an application for shisha but only for the restaurant area.  The engineer had set up the noise machine for 24 hours. Only one resident had objected about noise and there had been no objections from planning. There were no noise issues from the restaurant area which was proven in the acoustic report for the planning approval. The rear structure was not subject to this application. He asked that the applicant be given a chance as he had a restaurant licence. He was the designated premises supervisor and could answer to incidents. Any incidents had been over a long period of time.

The applicant stated that in 2019 the premises was a barber shop.  He needed to close in December 2020 due to Covid regulations but he had two or three friends round. He paid the fine and said he was sorry.  He asked that the Sub-Committee consider the changes he had made. He did get approval for the kitchen and barbers shop. He had five children to provide for. The premises was mixed use and this had been approved.  He said that he had not yet done the smoking area as it would cost up to £40000 and it was a temporary structure.  He had made the restaurant area.  The licence was only for a small area and was nothing to do with the back garden.

In response to questions, the applicant said that he would operate as a restaurant and barber shop. He would operate the minimum hours and comply with conditions.  He was focussed on the restaurant and conditions that he would follow. His representative said that a good set of conditions had been proposed.  The manager should be given a chance to prove himself. He had not been given a proper chance and only limited hours were being requested.  The applicant had already compromised in accordance with the requirements of the Responsible Authorities. Any incidents were not inside the room but in the garden. The applicant said he had apologised and did not want to be out on the street. He apologised for previous mistakes but this licence would be for a small area and was nothing to do with the back garden. Officers would not find any breaches of conditions within the restaurant area. In response to a question regarding cumulative impact the applicant’s representative stated that the licence would not have a negative impact. If the property was vacant this would create more anti-social behaviour and an empty business would affect the community and create more crime. They had reduced the hours from the original application to framework hours.  Customers could currently bring their own alcohol and there had not been any issues. He had been managing that with their receipts and a time end of 11pm. When asked if he was aware of the proposed conditions, the applicant stated that he had to be closed at 11pm and show CCTV if there was an incident.  He would have an incident book and would co-operate with the licensing authority.

In summary, the Police stated that the applicant had not offered anything more and, regarding the cumulative impact the police had only heard that the applicant wanted to be given a chance.  This licence had already been refused and there had been two further incidents since. The applicant had stated that there was a change of business but the business seemed very confused. The police stance remained the same. The police had no confidence in the application and did not have any confidence from visits and interactions.

The Licensing Authority stated that the Sub-Committee should bear in mind previous non-compliance. The applicant only wanted to use the middle area and she thought that would mean that the rear structure would be used for smoking. She considered that the restaurant should be completely closed from the rear area to prevent noise issue. There was a screen and it did not appear to be a properly constructed wall. If there was a small restaurant in the middle area this could be granted with a smoking area at the rear although this had residents overlooking who had submitted representations. There was also previous non-compliance to take into account.

The Trading Standards officer stated that the police and the licensing authority had greater interaction with the applicant and their submissions should carry more weight.

The applicant’s representative stated that there had only been one incident since the previous application. The first application was a barbers shop and that had been the issue.  This was now a compromise to reduce the application to the bare minimum. The applicant had learned the hard way.  He respected the concerns. This application was very different from the previous application. The applicant stated that he had invested a lot of money in the premises and asked the Sub-Committee to consider the specific area for the restaurant.  He would comply with all the conditions proposed.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of D and D Grooming Lounge, 347 Holloway Road, N7 0RN, be refused.

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 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 operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

Two local resident objections had been received.  There had been representations made by the Licensing Authority, Police and Trading Standards. Conditions were agreed with the noise team.

Planning had made a representation concerning the use of the unauthorised rear extension as work that had been carried out did not accord with planning consent.

The Sub-Committee took into account that the premises were situated in a cumulative impact area, past compliance of current management and whether the applicant could demonstrate commitment to a high standard of management. Licensing Policy 7 states that the Licensing Authority seeks to encourage the highest standards of management in licensed premises and expects this to be demonstrated in the operating schedule. In particular, applicants are expected to explain how they will promote the licensing objectives and address the relevant guidance.  The Licensing Authority had raised concerns about the lack of detail in the operating schedule and that the applicant had not addressed the fact that the premises were in a cumulative impact area. When questioned, the applicants’ representative said that the Sub-Committee needed to give the applicant an opportunity to show that he could manage the premises and he emphasised that empty premises were likely to have a negative impact and more problems and more crime. This was not a satisfactory response.

Licensing Policy 8 states that when assessing the applicant’s ability to demonstrate a commitment to high standards of management the Licensing Authority will take into account whether he can demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of best practice, has implemented any advice that had been given by the responsible authorities, is able to understand legal requirement, can demonstrate knowledge of the licensing objectives and Licensing Policy and also his responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003. Further, the applicant must be able to run a business lawfully and in accordance with good business practice and demonstrate a track record of compliance with legal requirements.  The Sub-Committee noted a number of failures to comply with the law including Covid regulations and indoor smoking. A penalty notice had been issued. The Planning Department had mentioned the possibility of serving an enforcement notice in relation to the rear extension.  Police had described an occasion that the applicant had tried to divert them to the front of the building rather than opening a door to the back area where people were unlawfully smoking. The police said that they had zero confidence in the applicant’s ability to adhere to any conditions and would find it difficult to check the lounge at the back.

The applicant pointed out that he had attempted to compromise over a long period of time. He had made a mistake and had paid the fine in relation to the Covid regulations but he had learnt from this. He had children in his family to pay for and a lot of time had been wasted.

The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption incumbent on him that premises licences in this cumulative impact area would normally be refused on the grounds of the likely cumulative impact on the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and public nuisance.