Agenda item

David Claxton, representing the applicant, requested that the item be adjourned in order that further preparation be made on the application.  The Sub-Committee considered that there were no grounds for an adjournment at this late stage and agreed that the application proceed in the normal way.

The licensing officer tabled the second page of the licensing authority representation and the covering email from public health which had not been included in the agenda.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The police officer reported that the premises were located in the Archway cumulative impact area.  The area was particularly busy and the numbers of people on the streets increased at the weekends.  This was a public transport hub.  The police had launched a campaign to reduce violence in the night time economy and as a result the crime and disorder related offences across the area were starting to fall.  They would not want a licence to be granted in an area that may reverse this trend. Since the application had been submitted there had been no contact from the applicant.  The police officer confirmed that there had been no crime that was specifically linked to the premises.

The licensing authority stated that the premises were in a cumulative impact area and the operating schedule submitted by the applicant had not addressed the licensing objectives.  The applicant had not demonstrated that he could operate a late night venue in a cumulative area.

The officer from public health reported that the area was one of the most densely licensed areas in the Borough with one of the highest number of ambulance call outs.  They did not consider that there was a problem with the existing hours of operation but requested that the application to extend those hours should not be granted. 

David Claxton stated that there were no police concerns relating directly to the premises.  There had been no police calls outs and the Sub-Committee could infer that if the hours were extended the premises would be run in the same manner.  There was no evidence that the business contributed towards the issues raised by the police.

There were no concerns regarding the licence holder.  Whilst the operating schedule had been scantily drafted it had covered the key points.  An SIA door supervisor would be employed after midnight.  He stated that there were other premises in the area which were open after midnight and the applicant was seeking commercial parity with competitors. The public health statistics were general and not specifically related to these premises.

In response to questions it was noted that one member of staff would be on the premises after midnight and the applicant considered that this was adequate to mitigate or eliminate public nuisance.  The background and history of the applicant, the fact that alcohol was served with food and that the premises were small would adequately rebut the presumption of cumulative impact. It was acknowledged that planning permission had not been granted for the additional hours but opening could not take effect until planning permission had been received.  There was no intention to breach planning law. In response to a question addressed to the applicant regarding dispersal, the applicant stated that the night time and the weekends were busy.  He had been managing the restaurant since 2003 and had not had any problems.

In summary, the police officer stated that, although there were no problems in relation to these premises directly, based on police experience there were more problems that arose from the consumption of alcohol that occurred after midnight. The licensing authority reported that this had been a poor application and the applicant had not wanted to engage with officers. The public health officer reported that they agreed with the police experience that problems occurred after midnight.  He did not consider there was any evidence to show that this restaurant would be an exception to the cumulative impact policy.

The licensee’s representative accepted that there had been scant detail in the application but stated that the licensee took his responsibilities seriously.  There had been a constructive discussion with the noise team.  There was no evidence that these premises would cause additional problems in the area.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a premises licence variation at Zara Restaurant, 5 Junction Road, N19 5QT be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The subcommittee 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 particular consideration licensing policies 1 & 2 (location, cumulative impact and saturation), licensing policies 7 & 8 (hours of operation) and licensing policies 9 & 10 (the operating schedule). The premises fall under the Archway cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations of premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.. There was an expectation that the applicant would fully explain in the operating schedule the arrangements that would be put in place to ensure that the premises did not add to the cumulative impact given that the application fell outside the recommended hours for restaurants and cafes and given that the current planning permitted hours restricted the hours of operation to between 08:00 hours and midnight on any day.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had accepted conditions proposed by the Council’s noise service. The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the responsible authorities who all maintained that the problems relating to crime and disorder and public nuisance increased after midnight. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had not availed himself of the opportunity to engage with the responsible authorities, the operating schedule was at best, scant, he had not shown any exceptional circumstances as to why the application should be granted and he had failed to demonstrate that there would be no adverse cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the application would undermine the licensing objective of prevention of crime and disorder and that conditions or restrictions would be an ineffective solution.