To consider an application for a new premises licence.
Minutes:
Dahlia Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a new Premises License The Parkside 45 Grovelands Road London N15 6BT.There were objections from responsible authority, namely the Police and EHO Noise Officer and conditions put forward which were accepted by the applicant. These were shown at appendix 4 from page 66-67.
The Licensing Officer advised the Committee that one representation had been received from other persons who have concerns, principally in respect of public nuisances and public safety. Those concerns related to the nuisance that might be caused to local residents if a license was to be granted and set out nuisance that has been experienced by resident as a result of events that have previously taken place at the premises.
The Committee were further advised that the premises had been complained about by residents since February 2013. The recorded information showed complaints being made up to July 2017. Residents complained of noise emanating from the restaurant, both music and people noise, whilst customers were outside on the pavement. In March 2016, Licensing requested an enforcement visit was made to the premises to check and see if licensable activity was being carried out without a license. The Officer reported the premises closed at 23.30.
A further written complaint was received in September 2016. Licensing had sent an email to Mr Breacher asking for clarification of activities that were taking place at the premises. The Local SNT officer was also approached by the residents over the ongoing nuisance they were experiencing from the restaurant. The Committee considered the copies of complaints lodged from and emails attached at appendix 3.
The Licensing Officer highlighted, to the Committee, that if the license was granted, the restaurant would be able to offer live and recorded music between the hours of 8am to 23:00 for up to 500 people without the need to place this on the premises licence.
The Licensing Officer referred to the Letter of representation from the resident which explained that the restaurant was located in a quiet residential street and there had been ongoing problems with noise since the venue had opened. The letter set out issues relating to noise pollution and nuisance noise caused by customers attending events at the restaurant which was not appropriate for a residential street. The noise came from inside the restaurant with loud music from customers congregating outside the restaurant, talking and smoking. Also when customers left the venue, often late on a Sunday night, there was an upswing of cars leaving the restaurant with increased traffic causing further noise. Also, as this was a tight residential street, the number of customers parking in the street caused issues for the 318 bus, use of the road ,forcing the bus to sound its horn for a cars causing further noise for resident’s late at night.
Mayer Chersky, the premises supervisor, addressed the Committee and apologised for the noise emanating from the premises and gave his commitment to be more fully involved with the premises on a daily basis. He had already discussed the complaint with the applicant and how to address this issue.
Mr Mayer also offered his contact details to residents in order to work with them to resolve issues. He contended that there would only be fifty to seventy people in the restaurant and he would open the restaurant in the morning from 10am and would serve no alcohol from 10pm with customers needing to leave the event by 10.30pm. Mr Mayer advised that he would be asking customers, hiring out the restaurant for events, to pay a separate deposit of £100 which was non-refundable, if there were any complaints about noise from residents. They would put up signs up to advise no alcohol without ID. Mr Breacher explained that he had sought the license to allow him to serve cocktails which was, in his view, a more customer friendly drink, which did not have the same impact as whisky and wine. However, he was willing to work with the licensing authority to make the restaurant work for both customers and local residents.
In response to a question, it was noted that the premises had previously been two separate shops which had been converted to its current use, a large deli restaurant. The applicant contended that recently there had been small events with 20 to 25 people and further contended that the premises was too small place to house weddings as asserted.
In relation to a question about the term ‘Nuisance not established’, mentioned in the complaint log, put forward from the Noise team, this may have been due to the Noise officer not being able to visit when the complaint was made or if they did visit, the noise may not have been deemed to be a nuisance.
In response to a question, the applicant explained that the plan was to make the restaurant cater for 80 people but this had been discussed further with the premises license holder and he better understood the difficulties in closing up the restaurant with this many people. He would also respond to the concern about Parking by ensuring that there was a minicab firm used to pick up people from the premises.
In relation to the misleading information provided to a resident about the opening hours of the premises and term of licenses managing, the Committee felt that this was not acceptable and it would be important to ensure resident’s concerns are responded to.
The Committee felt that Mr Breacher needed to comment on the conversation and take on responsibility for this comment.
Closing address
Mr Chersky advised that he and the applicant were taking the complaint made very seriously and had decided close the premises from 10pm and ensure patrons left the premises by 10.30. His contact details were offered to residents in case of any issues.
RESOLVED
The Committee carefully considered the application for a new premises licence, the representations made by the resident, the representations made by the Applicant , the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Licensing Act 2003 section 182 guidance.
The Committee resolved to grant the application in part as follows:
Supply of Alcohol
Sunday to Thursday 1200 to 2200 hours
Friday to Saturday 1800 to 2200 hours
For consumption ON the premises.
Hours open to the Public
Sunday to Thursday 0900 to 2230 hours
Friday to Saturday 1800 to 2230 hours
The Committee added the following conditions as agreed with the Enforcement Response Team and the Metropolitan Police:
Deliveries and collections.
Plant and machinery
Dealing with complaints
Patrons entering/exiting premises.
Prevention of Nuisance from Odour
Crime and disorder
(a) all crimes reported to the venue
(b) all ejections of patrons
(c) any complaints received
(d) any incidents of disorder
(e) seizures of drugs or offensive weapons
(f) any faults in the CCTV system
(g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol
(h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.
Protection of Children from harm
The following form of verification of a person’s proof of age is:
A valid passport
A photo driving licence
A proof of age standard card system
A citizen card, supported by the Home Office.
In addition it will be a condition that the number of patrons allowed to gather or smoke outside the front of the premises shall be limited to 5 at any one time and no drinks to be taken outside. This should address noise generated by groups of people outside at the front of the premises.
The Committee resolved to grant the application subject to conditions proposed as part of the operating schedule. Where any of those conditions are inconsistent with the above condition, the conditions set out above shall prevail.
The Committee granted slightly reduced licensing and opening hours to reflect the quiet residential nature of the area and the potential likelihood for public nuisance late at night. In doing so, it had regard to the 2016 and 2017 noise complaints that had occurred at night and the representations made by the resident.
Despite the complaints and the potential for public nuisance if the licence was granted, the Committee considered that the licensing objectives could be upheld if the licence was granted. However, the residential nature of the area meant that the premises would have to be well managed and the conditions strictly adhered to.
The applicant through his Designate Premises Supervisor had assured the Committee of their strong commitment to running a successful local business. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted and granted the licence subject to the conditions it considered appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
Informative
The Committee wanted the Licence Holder to be aware that if noise at the premises is not managed and noise complaints persist after the licence is granted the Responsible Authorities and/or residents could request a review of the licence.
Supporting documents: