Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that he had nothing further to add to the report.

The police stated that the hours requested fell outside the recommended hours contained within the licensing policy.  The premises were situated in a very busy transport hub where 463 crimes had been reported over the past six months.  The premises had been operating for five years without a licence and a warning letter sent in 2013 had been ignored.  This reflected poor management standards.  Four crimes had been linked to the venue and although they were not linked to poor management they were at times when the business should not have been operating.  The applicant had been advised to operate within hours proposed by the policy but this had been rejected by the applicant.

In response to questions it was reported that the police had discussed the application with the applicant and would agree midnight during the week and 1am on Fridays and Saturdays. They agreed that deliveries could be made after this time.  However, the applicant would not agree to this and requested 3 or 4 am for passing trade.

The applicant stated that the warning letter had not been sent to his address and was not in his name.  It was addressed to another occupier who runs the basement premises and he did not pass the letter onto him. He wanted the opportunity to get ahead and had established his business.  He stated that his business would not survive without a late night licence.  Once he had received the letter about his hours he took action straight away.  He stated that the business would be takeaway after 11pm.  He would follow procedures and record incidents.  He would ask customers to leave quietly and respect neighbours.  This was not a licence for alcohol and music was not played on the premises.  CCTV would be installed and shared with the police.  He always called the police when necessary.  He had made a mistake and needed a second chance.  He was happy to agree to all the conditions. 

In response to questions, the applicant stated that he had five years experience; he had handled the business with no problems and was happy to do what he instructed to do.  He admitted that he had been operating without a licence for five years.  He stated that Thursdays through to Saturdays was very busy. If he closed at 11pm he would only have four to five hours of business and he was very quiet before 11pm.  He stated that other shops were trading in the area at 4am. The warning letter was sent to downstairs and he did not receive it.  The applicant apologised but stated that he needed a second chance and if he had to operate only until 11pm he would lose too much business.

In summary, the police stated that they did not have an issue with the management of the business but stated that this was a cumulative impact area and they did not want people in the area late at night.

The applicant stated that he had already lost customers over the past few days.  He had been using temporary event notices to operate.  If hours were restricted until 11pm his business would operate for only five hours.  His staff would also be working less hours.  He stated he would like to carry on his business and would want to have 3 am at the earliest.

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Emparo Pizza, 1 Stroud Green Road, N4 2DQ 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 1 and 2.  The premises fall under the Holloway and 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.

Representations had been made by the police and the licensing authority.  The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had been operating the premises for about five years without a licence which in their view was a serious failure of the high standards of management expected of licence holders. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were outside the hours specified in licensing policy 8.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the increase in hours would add to the existing cumulative impact in the area.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine the licensing objectives. In accordance with Licensing Policy 7, the Sub-Committee noted the cumulative impact that the proliferation of late night venues and retailers in the borough is having on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The applicant failed 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.