Agenda item

The Sub-Committee moved into private session under paragraph 1, of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider this item.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Unico Italian Café, 156a Seven Sisters Road, N7 7PS 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 Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new 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. The Sub-Committee also considered licensing policies 9 and 10 regarding high standards of management.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that the current applicant was linked to the previous licensee and that it was his belief that the previous licensee would still be involved in the running of the premises which he considered would return to its previous state.  The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s concerns that the police did not provide any extra information prior to the hearing.

The Sub-Committee noted the police concerns that the applicant had never run a restaurant before and could not demonstrate any licensing experience.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that the premises would be a family restaurant and that alcohol would only be served with a full table meal with no vertical drinking.  The applicant stated that while he knew the previous licensee they were not best friends and he did not know him well. The applicant’s representative clarified that the maximum capacity was 50 persons and submitted that with the hours sought in a family run restaurant there would be no negative impact from noise and disturbance.

The Sub-Committee noted that, upon being asked about his understanding of the area, the applicant stated that there were no issues although his representative then discussed conditions to tackle street drinking.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine the licensing objectives.

In accordance with licensing policy 2, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the grant of the application would undermine the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient understanding of the cumulative impact policy and the area in which the premises were located. Although it was noted that the applicant was seeking hours within the core hours of licensing policy 8, and although the premises would have capacity for only 50 persons, the Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had no experience of operating licensed premises.  These premises were in an area recognised to be saturated with licensed premises and that featured prominently in alcohol related crime datasets.  The applicant had failed to demonstrate that he would be able to provide a sufficiently high standard of management to rebut the presumption that the application if granted, would add to the cumulative impact area.  The applicant did not show any exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the application.

In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee formed the view that refusing the application was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives.