Agenda item

To consider an application for a variation of the premises licence.

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a variation to an existing premises licence at La Taberna del Paisa, 43 West Green Road.  Ms Barrett informed the Committee that the hours shown at paragraph 1.3 of the report were incorrect, and the hours of the licence were 0800-2300, Monday-Sunday, with licensable activities ceasing 30 minutes earlier.  The Applicant had applied for an extension of the opening hours and licensable activities to 0800-0300 Friday and Saturday, and 0800-0000 Sunday to Thursday.  The Applicant, Mr Tobon, had not offered any additional conditions for the panel to consider. 

Representations had been received from local residents, the Licensing Authority, and the Metropolitan Police.  Mr Tobon had accepted the hours put forward by the Police and therefore the application would be for an extension to hours on Friday and Saturday only (0800-0000), with licensable activities ceasing 30 minutes earlier.  Hours for Sunday to Thursday would remain at 0800-2300, with licensable activities ceasing 30 minutes earlier.

The local resident, Mr Ehrenzweig, made a representation on behalf of his tenants at 60a West Green Road, and tenants at 56-58 West Green Road.  He had received a number of complaints from his tenants regarding noise nuisance from the premises at night.  The premises did not close their doors at night, resulting in noise escape.  Any extension to hours would result in further disturbance to local residents. 

The Applicant’s Representative, Mr Tobon’s daughter, presented the application for a variation to the premises licence.  West Green Road was a late night economy, with many premises with similar hours as applied for.  Many of the Applicant’s customer base was Latin American, where the culture was to socialise late at night.  Mr Tobon had found that the business was most viable during the later trading hours and so wished to extend his opening hours to make his business work.

Mr Tobon requested to show some photographs to the Committee, and was advised by the Council’s Lawyer that late evidence would only be permitted at the discretion of the Chair.  When asked, Mr Ehrenzweig stated that he could not see the relevance of photographs when the issues raised in relation to the premises were about noise.  The Chair took the decision not to admit the photographs as late evidence.

The Applicant’s Representative advised that there had only been one occasion where live music had been played, and this was when the premises had opened.  In response to the representation made by the Metropolitan Police, the Applicant’s Representative advised that there had been no reports of any disturbance caused, and following the agreement to the hours posed by the police, the representation had been withdrawn.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Applicant’s Representative advised that:

-           It was not felt necessary to add conditions to the licence, as the existing ones were satisfactory;

-           The complaints log contained details of one incident;

-           The CCTV had been brought up to standard, and all speakers were mounted on anti-vibration brackets, although this had not been verified by any officers from the Council, or Police licensing;

-           It would not be necessary to have an SIA door supervisor at the premises.

All parties summed up, and the Chair advised that the decision would be provided in writing within five days of the hearing.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a variation of the premises licence, the representations made by the Licensing Authority, Metropolitan Police, local residents, the representations made by the Applicant and his representative, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing Act 2003 s182 guidance.

The Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to the hours put forward by the Metropolitan Police and would not be seeking the hours as set out on the application.  However, after hearing the representations made by all parties, the Committee was satisfied that there was credible evidence before it that the applicant had not adhered to the conditions of his current licence.  The Applicant could not satisfy the committee that he had implemented sufficient changes in the way he was running his premises so as to satisfy the licensing objectives.  In particular, the applicant could not demonstrate that he had sufficient measures in place to address the effect of noise and anti-social behaviour/nuisance on local residents.

The committee had regard to the statement of licensing policy and its wish to promote the local economy of which the premises is a part, but could not treat this application in isolation from the impact that the premises was having on  its neighbours.

The Committee therefore refused to grant the licence.

The committee approached its deliberations with an open mind and only made its decision after hearing the parties’ representations.  The committee considered its decision to be appropriate and proportionate.