Agenda item

The Licensing Officer introduced the case and explained there had been a recent resident concern regarding noise from building at the rear of the venue.

The Applicant explained they had installed noise insulation at the request of the previous committee this item was deferred from. The building work for this was now complete so there should be no more noise pollution. He further explained the recent noise the resident heard was from cleaning not building work and he had explained this to her at the time. He expressed that he had done everything he now could to reduce noise pollution.

Officers from the Noise Team had been to check the noise levels in residents’ properties since the sound proofing had been completed and confirmed there was no longer concern for noise bleeding into surrounding properties.

The Sub-Committee asked the applicant what his understanding of the Licensing Objectives were. He explained it was not an alcohol-led business and would not be rowdy like a club, they also had a closing time of 11PM. He also explained there would be no Off Sales of alcohol and alcohol would only be consumed ancillary to food. 

The Sub-Committee had further questions on how he would control Anti-Social Behaviour. He explained staff would be trained and that he would be happy to employ SIA security staff when needed on weekends. He would also place signs in the windows to remind patrons to respect the neighbours. There would also be a limit of 6 people allowed to smoke outside. The only music would be background music.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, the applicant explained the business model was a restaurant with a bar and lounge with a capacity of 35 to 45 people. They would have served Ethiopian food and alcohol would be served only with a meal.

RESOLVED

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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 falls within the Finsbury Park and Holloway 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.

5 local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities. Conditions had been agreed with the Noise team and the Police. Planning were considering an application to vary the conditions and there was an open enforcement case. Licensing had confirmed that sound proofing works were completed, and the premises had operated under a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) without complaint. Many of the objections related to past building works which had now been completed. However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant in his opening address appeared aggrieved at a representation by a local resident, bearing in mind previous ill feeling between residents and the applicant.

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

Under Licensing Policy 2, the Sub-Committee took into account the following matters:

-        The fact the premises was in a cumulative impact area where a presumption against granting a new license applied

-        The location of the premises and the character of the area, which is in a busy commercial area

-        The proximity of the premises to residential flats and the potential impact on those residents

-        The past compliance history of the current management

-        Whether the applicant could demonstrate commitment to a high standard of management

Licensing Policy 2, paragraph 8, refers to the fact that Islington has one of the highest densities of licensed premises in England and careful consideration must be given to adding to them particularly in a cumulative impact area.

Licensing Policy 8 refers to management standards and whether he could demonstrate commitment to them. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of best practice, understood legal requirements or could demonstrate knowledge of the licensing objectives and his responsibility under the Licensing Act 2003. He was unable to identify any of the licensing objectives and seemed unclear on what was meant by the question. Although one of the conditions he had agreed to was to operate Challenge 25, he said he would challenge people up to the age of 21, which was not what was required. The applicant spoke of future training of staff but did not go into detail and although he was prepared to use SIA door supervisors, he said he would use them at weekends ‘if needed’. He did not seem to have a clear idea of what was needed. 

The Sub-Committee concluded that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption against granting a license in a cumulative impact area and it was likely that because of his lack of good management standards in that challenging Holloway Road District, that the licensing objectives of public nuisance or crime and disorder would be impacted. Granting the license would not promote licensing objectives and would be likely to add to the cumulative impact.