Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that the licensing team and police carried out a joint visit the previous Friday. No alcohol was in the premises and no particular concerns were raised. The Sub-Committee noted that this was a fresh application and there were no representations from the responsible authorities.

The resident raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact in the area. He stated that the area was well supplied with premises including late night premises in the area.  He was concerned about noise at the front of the premises and people blocking the narrow pavement outside. He was also concerned about noise at the rear of the premises as noise could spill out in the courtyard area and resonate around the block. He was concerned about the suitability of the applicant as he had previously stored alcohol although he accepted he had not seen any since that time. The premises had a snooker table and he considered it felt more like a club. He was concerned that the introduction of alcohol would increase the noise nuisance and his other neighbours shared his concerns.

In response to questions the resident had not noticed an increase in noise from the café but was concerned that this would change if alcohol was sold. The applicant had spoken to him and had asked him to contact him if there was any problem. The resident stated that he was not reassured that there was a proposed noise condition that the licensee would be asked to take appropriate action if there was a substantiated noise complaint. He said noise disturbance occurred at different times of the day but there was an increase around midnight when people emerged from the pubs. People congregated at the end of Berriman Road. He did not notice much noise beyond this time but was worried that it would increase.

The applicant stated that this was a café. He stated that the resident had not heard any noise outside the normal noise levels. He respected the residents and monitored his customers. He had a recycling and waste management policy and employed a private company to collect the rubbish above that which is provided by the local authority. Customers would be asked to leave the area completely. They would uphold the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and public nuisance and would respect the public, including neighbours. They would uphold the objective of prevention of children from harm. This was not a bar or pub and was just a small café.  The licence would not make a big change to how it was currently operating. Music would be background only. They would uphold all the licensing objectives. They would work with the licensing authority and the police and observe the licence conditions at all times.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that this was a café and not a club. He just wanted to sell some alcohol. There was an open porch in the front. Customers were allowed outside to smoke, only two at a time, and CCTV had been installed to monitor. No customers were allowed to go out to the rear and it would only be staff allowed out at the rear when necessary for the operation of the café. This would usually take about five minutes at the most. They would monitor the front outside area through CCTV and staff had a view of the outside from the counter area. All staff received induction training, which would include a section on the control of customers. The designated premises supervisor had a personal licence but, should the licence be granted, all staff would have personal licence training. The applicant suggested that the mobile number for the designated premises supervisor be placed at the front shop window. It was expected that the food offer might increase if the licence was granted and the menu would improve. Customers would not be allowed to drink alcohol without food. The applicant was asked a question regarding vertical drinking. The applicant did not seem to understand the meaning of vertical drinking and he referred to the mandatory conditions of not dispensing alcohol directly into the mouth and making tap water available. He agreed that alcohol would only be served with a substantial meal and if the cafe was full he would ask customers to return at a later time. There would be no more than 20 people on the premises, including four staff. He would be selling beers, lagers, wine and a few spirits. No draught beers. The substantial meal they currently served was Ethiopian pancakes with lentils or beef.  If the licence was agreed they would increase food options.

In summary, the resident was concerned that if food options were increased, ventilation/extraction would need to be installed at the rear of the premises.

The applicant stated that most food was prepared from other local businesses and just reheated.  If it was necessary they would need to submit a major variation.

RESOLVED

1)      That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Admas Café, 162 Seven Sisters Road, N7 7PT, be granted to allow:-

a)         The the sale of alcohol, on and off supplies, Mondays to Sundays 1pm to 9.30pm

b)         The provision of late night refreshment, Fridays and Saturdays from 11pm until midnight.

c)          The premises to be open to the public, Monday to Thursdays from 9am until 11pm, Fridays and Saturdays from 9am until midnight and Sundays from 9am until 10pm.

2)      That conditions detailed on pages 41 to 44 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following amendments:-

·       Condition 15 to read. Alcohol can only be served with a substantial hot or cold meal freshly prepared on the premises and to customers seated at a table.

·       A contact telephone number for the DPS be displayed in the front window of the premises.

·       No-one shall consume alcohol standing up.

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. Paragraph 54 states that the licensing authority has to balance the needs of businesses with those of local residents and in particular adverse impacts associated with late night venues and alcohol related anti-social behaviour especially as a result of drinking in the street. Licensing policy 8, paragraph 90, says that the Licensing Authority is committed to promoting high standards of management in all licensed premises and expects applicants to demonstrate this through the operating schedule and management practices.

Four local resident objections had been received. One local resident attended. He was concerned about the cumulative impact of licensed premises in his locality and the possibility of noise, not just from the front but also the back of the premises and congregation of people late at night. He accepted that the operation of the premises at the current time, made things no worse than they were but was concerned about the addition of alcohol.

There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities and conditions had been agreed with the noise team and the police.

The Sub-Committee noted that it was a small premises and were heartened by the evidence of the applicant that he would be able to monitor the front of his building from the counter and ensure that patrons did not spill out onto the street. However, when asked about vertical drinking he was unclear as to the meaning of the phrase. The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had agreed to a condition prohibiting vertical drinking without understanding what it meant. The Sub-Committee also noted that the applicant had agreed to a condition for freshly prepared substantial meals when his operation had very limited facilities for cooking on the premises. It was clear however, that the applicant made arrangements for delivery of food and heated food in the microwave or on the hob.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that, with the reduction in hours and the conditions, there would be no adverse cumulative impact on any of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee took into account the evidence of the interested party of people congregating outside in the street after local premises had closed. The Sub-Committee was also keen to promote a line of communication between the business and local residents and therefore suggested that the mobile phone number of the designated premises supervisor should be displayed at the front of the shop. The condition about vertical drinking was reworded to ensure that the applicant understood the condition.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives. With the conditions and reduction in hours, there would be no adverse impact on any of the licensing objectives and the presumption was rebutted.