Issue - meetings

To consider a review of the premises licence.

The Committee carefully considered the review application and representations made by all parties, as well as the council’s statement of licensing policy, the Licensing Act 2003, and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 guidance.

In light of what it heard the Special Licensing Sub-Committee decided it was appropriate and proportionate to revoke the licence. 

Reasons:

Having heard evidence from the Police, local residents, and the respondents, the Committee was satisfied that there had been a failure on the part of the licence holder to promote and uphold the licensing objectives relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder.

The evidence put before the Committee in connection with violence and disorder, was particularly serious.  The Special Licensing Sub-Committee viewed Closed Circuit Television which showed individuals associated with the premises engaging in gratuitous violence.

The Committee noted with some concern that the license holder himself had been the subject of threats of violence and acts of violence of a most serious and disturbing nature including the threatened use of a firearm.  It was accepted that within the premises itself, the license holder was using his best endeavours to run his business in a manner that was consistent with the licensing objectives but this was undermined by a sustained refusal to implement advice given by a responsible authority to introduce and utilise an ID scan system to assist with upholding the licensing objectives with respect to crime and disorder. In addition, the license holder’s efforts were also undermined by the occurrence of noise nuisance which resulted in the service of a noise abatement notice in March 2017.

The Committee was satisfied on the evidence it heard that even with conditions, the licence holder would not be able to ameliorate the difficult conditions with respect to crime and disorder and nuisance that the venue was facing. The Committee was satisfied that it had heard credible evidence regarding incidents of crime and disorder and nuisance associated with the premises including serious violence, noise nuisance, vomiting and urinating in the streets, the taking of drugs and intimidating behaviour directed at locals going about their normal business.

These incidents of crime and disorder linked to the premises were so grave that the Committee decided it was appropriate to revoke the licence.

The Committee took into account representations from the Premises Licence Holder regarding their ongoing work to co-operate with the Police and the Licensing Authority to address the concerns raised in relation to crime and disorder, and also the impact that revoking the licence would have on the license owner’s livelihood.

However, in view of the seriousness of the incidents referred to in the hearing which the Committee was satisfied could be attributed to patrons of the premises, the Committee felt that complete revocation of the licence was the only measure that could ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives, in particular for the prevention of crime and disorder.

The Committee only made its decision after considering all the evidence and was satisfied that revocation of the  ...  view the full decision text for item 45

RECEIVED the application for the review of the premises licence as detailed on pages 10 to 16 of the agenda pack.

a.         Licensing Officer’s Introduction

The Licensing Officer, Daliah Barrett, introduced the application for a review of the premises licence called by the Metropolitan Police, referring to the documents in the agenda pack. The grounds for the review were prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance. The police submitted within their documentation evidence of the issues that had arisen that lead to a review of the licence, which ranged from noise nuisance to street brawls and public disorder that emanated from the venue. The area of the venue at the roundabout at the top of Muswell Hill had been home to a number of late night venues over the years and was a hot spot for crime generation caused by the night time economy in the area.

NOTED that the premises had operated as a café with the ability to sell alcohol for many years, which had changed into a more alcohol lead business as a wine bar and then it became a nightclub around 6 years ago. Mr Ioannou took over the premises in 2015 and had operated it as nightclub and he was the named designated premises supervisor. The premises licence was included in the agenda pack at page 60. NOTED that the opening hours were: Monday to Thursday 8:00am-3:30am; Friday to Saturday 8:00am – 4:30 am; Sunday 8:00am – 2:30am.

Fourteen residential representations had been received in relation to the application Residents had submitted written representations setting out the impact of anti-social behaviour that took place in and around the venue and the impact that this was having on their enjoyment of their home and the area in general. Residents had also questioned the appropriateness of the venue in a residential area, particularly given the late opening hours that it operated with.

The Lead Licensing Officer referred the Committee to the email correspondence between herself and Mr Ioannou’s representatives at pages 126-142. The Lead Licensing Officers advised that following the notice of a review application being submitted, Mr Ioannou’s representative emailed the Licensing team to advise that acoustic lobbies had been installed at the front and back of the premises and to request a Haringey noise officer attend the venue to take noise measurements for the installation of a noise limiter.

The Committee was advised that the Licensing Authority had been alerted by residents to a ‘closed’ sign being placed at the premises in early July 2017. Contact was made with the client’s solicitor who responded back to say that there had been a flood at the premises and that it would be closed for refurbishment until early September.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding how many times the Licensing Authority had met with the DPS in the last two years, Ms Barrett advised that she had met with the DPS in May when the review was underway and that she had previously  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45