Agenda item

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by a local resident.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report on a review brought by a local resident, Mr Barnes, in respect of the Duke of Edinburgh, 83 Mayes Road, London N22, under the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objectives. The report set out the guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and other considerations, the application for review and supporting documentation, the existing premises licence, representations from the Noise Enforcement team and Police,  letters of representation from local residents and the representation from the licence holder.

 

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the use of the premises’ external area as a shisha garden, the Licensing Officer advised that this usage had come to the Licensing Authority’s attention as a result of visits to the premises. It was confirmed that this area was not covered by the premises’ current licence, and that a variation to the existing licence would be required for in order to permit any licensable activity in this area, for example use of the external bar service area. The Committee noted the number of previous letters and cautions issued to the premises; the Licensing Officer advised that the Licensing Authority had been preparing to apply for a review of the premises in 2014, but that the premises had subsequently closed, and notice issued that the owner of the property was seeking to recover possession from Mr Ozel, the leaseholder. The Licensing Authority had subsequently received a transfer of the licence to Mr Ozel, and the premises had reopened.

 

The applicant’s representative advised the Committee of the background to the review application having been submitted. Local residents had raised concerns directly with the premises to no effect, and the following were therefore sought as the result of the review process:

 

·         A reduction in the operating hours of the premises to midnight, as most issues occurred after this time. This was supported by the representation of the Noise Enforcement Team.

·         Replacement of the DPS, as recommended by the Police, as the current DPS was not considered to have fulfilled the duties of the role.

·         That the Police’s proposed conditions relating to the requirements of the CCTV system be imposed on the licence.

 

The applicant’s representative noted that an enquiry into recorded offences at the premises in 2014 had indicated that there had been 13 crimes recorded at the premises in a 6-month period, of which 8 bordered on public disorder. The incident where a weapon was found outside the premises, and the stabbing relating to a parking incident outside the premises were cited as evidence that the premises was out of control and that SIA staff were not performing their duties. The current premises licence stipulated a minimum of two SIA door staff on Friday and Saturday evenings from 9pm until close, and that these staff should monitor patrons to ensure that they leave in a prompt and courteous manner – evidence demonstrated that these conditions had not been adhered to. The applicant’s representative further noted that the response from the premises licence holder did not acknowledge the nuisance that had been caused to local residents, nor did they apologise or take any responsibility for the issues raised, and suggested that the licence holder did not fully comprehend their responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The Committee then heard from the Police and Noise Enforcement Team in relation to the written representations they had submitted.

 

The respondent’s representative addressed the Committee and covered the following points:

 

·         In relation to the written response submitted by Mr Ozel, it was not accurate to say that this was unapologetic; Mr Ozel had the right to respond to the application, and had quite rightly set out his commitment to upholding the Licensing Objectives and ensuring the safety of his customers and local residents.

·         Looking at the noise enforcement team records, most of the visits made in response to complaints had resulted on no nuisance having been observed and no action being taken. It was reasonable for the licence holder to indicate this in his response.

·         There are a number of other businesses in the local area, and the licence holder suggests that the issues of public nuisance may be attributable to those premises instead.

·         The licence holder did not accept that there was any basis for a reduction in the premises’ operating hours, but did accept the conditions proposed by the Police in their written representation.

·         The licence holder did not deny that there had been some issues in the past, in particular when his older son had some control in relation to the operation of the premises, and accepted that things could have been dealt with better. However they argued that incidents such as the weapon being found and the stabbing incident were noted as having taken place outside of the premises, and it was therefore unfair to say that these incidents were directly attributable to the operation of the premises.

·         Significant improvements had been made in the running of the premises since August 2016. An experienced manager had been brought in to assist the current DPS, a new security company had been brought in to provide SIA staff, remodelling had taken place, and a new clientele was being attracted to the premises. The number of licensing visits had decreased since August, and the premises had been proactive in addressing concerns.

·         The premises licence holder had engaged fully whenever matters had been brought to his attention, and had responded appropriately.

·         New management were in place, who would monitor the behaviour of customers and ban anyone whose behaviour was a cause for concern. It was confirmed that the owner’s older son was no longer in a position of influence in relation to the business. Customers were now individually advised to leave the premises in an orderly manner.

·         The evidence provided for reducing the hours of operation dated back many years, and was not therefore a valid basis for taking action at this time, particularly when taking into account the recent improvements which had been made prior to the application for the review having been submitted. The lack of visits made by the noise team in recent weeks demonstrated that improvements had been made.

·         The respondent’s representative concluded by saying that there were no grounds for a review being brought at this time and that any issues that may have arisen in the past had now ceased. The licence holder had demonstrated his commitment to upholding the licensing objectives and respecting his neighbours.

 

The Committee asked questions of all parties and the following points were raised during these discussions:

 

·         Mr Ozel confirmed that the DPS at the premises was Mr Umathan Ozel, who was supported by Mr Hussain. It was confirmed that the intention was for Mr Hussain to eventually take over as DPS, once his replacement personal licence was received from LB Hackney. The Licensing Officer confirmed that a transfer could be made prior to the replacement documentation being supplied, as long as the proposed DPS held a valid personal licence.

·         The applicant, Mr Barnes, was asked to respond to suggestions made by the licence holder that his complaints were vexatious and based on racial discrimination. Mr Barnes advised that all he had wanted was for the premises to keep the noise down but that this had been going on for over four years; parties had gone on at the premises until 3am, and there was no intervention by door supervisors for customers outside the premises. Mr Barnes denied that he had ever said anything in relation to the background of customers of the premises, and that on the occasions when he had gone out to complain about the noise he had himself been threatened.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding the nature of any threats, Mr Barnes advised that groups of people who he recognised as regular customers of the premises had started to gather outside his house and make noise at night, as it was known that he was making complaints about the premises. The same people would also deliberately park their cars across his driveway, and on one occasion when he had gone out to ask someone to move their car, he had been directly threatened.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding allegations of drug use by customers of the premises, Mr Barnes stated that this was based solely on his own observations.

·         It was confirmed that on a busy Friday or Saturday night, it could take two hours before a noise enforcement team officer was able to respond to a complaint raised regarding noise nuisance and that it was possible that by the time a visit was made the noise would have already ceased and ‘no action’ would be recorded as a result.

·         Mr Barnes advised that he had gone into the premises to complain in person on about three occasions, but that after that most of the issues had related to customers outside his home or blocking his driveway and on those occasions he had spoken to the door supervisors instead. His reception when he had gone in had been mixed, and when it had no effect, he had given up going inside to complain.

·         In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Barnes advised that he had never been invited to a meeting with the premises to discuss concerns, and he did not believe that his neighbours had been invited to any such meeting either.

·         In response to a question regarding the outcome Mr Barnes hoped for, he advised that he would like the noise level to be kept down for the benefits of himself and other local residents. He asked for the operating hours to be reduced, particularly in the outside area, and for the SIA staff to fulfil the functions of their role properly and to control customers.

·         The Licensing Officer advised that the premises would have been formally aware of the submission of this review application on 3 November 2016. The Committee asked Mr Barnes whether he had noticed a reduction in noise from the premises since August, as stated by the applicant. Mr Barnes advised that there had been a general reduction in the noise since early November, but there had still been incidents as recently as the night before the hearing.

·         The Noise Enforcement Officer advised that not all of the complaints received had been from one individual, and that the incidents recorded in the log included in the paperwork had been received from at least four individuals.

·         The Licensing Officer confirmed that this premises was on the list of premises that were visited on a monthly basis by the Licensing Authority and the Police, and that all of the issues raised had been brought to the attention of the licence holder. It was reported that there had been no response from the premises to the submission of the review application until prompted by officers, which was unusual.

·         The Licensing Officer advised that she and the Police had met with Mr Ozel recently, and that as a long-standing premises licence holder, it was to be expected that he would have an understanding of the responsibilities of a licence holder.

·         In response to a question from the Committee, PC Mark Greaves confirmed that the premises had been of significant cause for concern to the Police, especially prior to its closure in 2014. It was noted that since reopening, there had been a reduction in crime associated with the premises, however.

·         In response to a question from the Committee, the respondent’s representative confirmed that the premises was happy to accept the conditions proposed by the Police, and that many of these measures were already in place. Their only objection was to a reduction in operating hours, although they did offer a closing time for the shisha area of 0000. It was reported that air conditioning was currently being installed so that it would not be necessary to open doors and windows in summer, reducing the risk of noise nuisance.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding the other premises in the area, the Licensing Officer confirmed that these were of a very different nature to the Duke of Edinburgh and attracted a different clientele. None of the other local premises was on the list of premises of concern requiring monthly visits.

 

The respondent’s representative asked the Licensing Officer whether she had been in contact by text with the premises licence holder a few days after the submission of the review application. The Licensing Officer confirmed that this was the case, but that the contact had been in response to a text initiated by the Licensing Officer and had not been proactive.

 

The applicant’s representative summed up by stating that the premises had not been properly managed, and that the evidence submitted by the applicant in support of the review had been corroborated by the responsible authorities. A reduction in operating hours was sought, in order to address the problems.

 

The respondent’s representative advised that the licensee did not deny that there had been issues in the past but was doing everything he could to address the issues and was acting to improve things. He had given an undertaking to accept all of the conditions proposed and it was felt that this would be sufficient to address the concerns without the need to reduce the operating hours of the premises.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

 

The Committee decided to modify the conditions of the licence as follows:

 

The conditions proposed by the Police at pages 84 and 86 of the agenda pack are to be imposed.

 

Opening hours:

 

Monday to Sunday: 1000 to 0000

 

Supply of alcohol:

 

Monday to Sunday: 1000 to 2330

 

Live music and recorded music:

 

Monday to Sunday: 1000 to 2330

 

Provision of late night refreshment:

 

Monday to Sunday: 2300 to 2330

 

The outside shisha area is to close and all customers are to be asked to come inside by 2230, Monday to Sunday.

 

The Committee confirmed that no licensable activities, including the supply of alcohol, are to be carried out in the shisha area, as this does not form part of the area covered by the current licence.

 

The Committee took into consideration the record of incidents relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder as submitted by local residents, the Council’s Noise Enforcement team and the Police.  The committee was satisfied that despite having had a number of opportunities to address the public nuisance and crime and disorder that were emanating from the premises, the management of the premises had failed to take adequate steps to address the behaviour concerned.  The evidence put forward regarding the incidents by the applicant and his representative was credible and reflected long standing matters of concern to residents.  It was also clear that the impact and potential harm to local residents, many of whom are vulnerable by reason of age could not be ignored.  Having heard evidence from the respondent regarding recent changes to the management of the premises, the committee took the view that the measures imposed were an appropriate and proportionate response to promote the four Licensing Objectives.

 

The committee only made its decision after having heard all the evidence of the parties and considered its decision to be proportionate.

 

Informative

 

The Committee recommended that the DPS undertake training in relation to their responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003 on a regular basis and that, in the event that Mr Hussain replace the current DPS on the premises licence as indicated at the hearing, he also undertake to complete such training on a regular basis.