Agenda item

To consider an application for an existing premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      This was not a variation application, but a new application.

·      The application was for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises between 10:00 to 23:00 every day. The premises would be open to the public from 09:00 to 23:59.

·      The application form stated that the premises was to be used for use for men only.

·      The application went through a consultation process and representations had been received from responsible authorities which were now withdrawn, but representations still stood from residents and Councillor Emily Arkell.

·      The Planning Officer in his representation had stated that the application was contrary to planning permission.

 

 

In response to questions, Ms Barrett informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      An agreement had been made with the Police that the premises would be open between 10:00 to 22:00.

 

             

Presentation by the applicant

 

Mr Michael Lambrou, applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      The premises had been run for generations and had been passed down since 1989.

·      He and his partner ran five shops in the area.

·      The premises had never been a men’s-only premises and a nursery was located next door.

·      Around 60% to 70% of patrons were between 70 to 90 years old.

·      The premises had never had a problem with anybody and he knew the road very well.

·      He did not know where the understanding that the premises was to be a men’s only premises came from as anybody could come into the premises.

·      The premises served tea, coffee and sandwiches.

·      He had held premises licences most of his life and never had issues.

·      The Planning Officer who had submitted a representation had visited the premises on a hot day to find that the glass windows had been covered. The officer asked for curtains to be put up instead and this had been complied with.

 

 

In response to questions, Mr Lambrou informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Most of the customers were not heavy drinkers and would likely drink beer and Shandy up to 22:00. This was not a late hour.

·      There was concern that a late-night drinking establishment could cause an intimidating atmosphere to the women working on the road or walking down the road. However, many patrons were in their sixties and seventies and had great grandkids. These individuals kept a protective eye on people in the area and the patrons generally were very family oriented.

·      The premises prevented problematic individuals from going up and down the road. No noise had been caused to other individuals in the area.

·      The patrons were visiting the premises from within a three-mile radius. Generally, from Palmers Green or Wood Green and were largely from Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot backgrounds.

·      He had a good relationship with residents and businesses in the area including a woman who sold candles in the area.

·      He had not spoken to the nursery in the area, but they had raised no objection regarding the running of the premises with him.

·      There was not an excessive consumption of alcohol, the application was partly about holding events such as birthdays or large family events.

·      The menus were not advertised but there would be different types of meals served on different days. 

·      The Planning Officer who had visited the premises had not allowed certain changes to be made at the premises until he had approved the changes. There had been obstacles in place, but when requirements had been met, the premises could appear to be more like a café with menus put up at the front of the premises. 

 

At this point in the proceedings, Ms Barrett stated that the application was for a new premises licence or an extension of hours. This was the first time the applicant was seeking to serve alcohol at the premises. Any changes to the outside of the premises required planning permission.

 

In response to further questions, Mr Lambrou informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      He had held premises licences for more than 30 years. The first one he held was for his late father’s restaurant and he was not allowed to make mistakes. This was why food was served with alcohol. If someone ate whilst drinking alcohol, it was less likely they would consume too much alcohol.

·      The experience he had would help his business run properly and meet licensing objectives.

·      He knew the people that ran businesses across the road and he got on well with them.

 

In response to a question, Ms Barrett stated that planning permission was not required to put

menus in the window. It was always possible to laminate the sign from inside the window. The Planning Officer who had made a representation had referred to new signage above the door and this would need panning permission.

 

In response to further questions, Mr Lambrou informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      He had not seen any evidence of anybody being intimidated to submit a representation against the application. He had never seen anything like that and he would not allow it if he saw it.

 

 

Presentation by interested parties

           

Councillor Emily Arkell informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      She was objecting to the application because a group of residents had approached her as a ward councillor.

·      Some residents did not want to be identified because they did not want to face any repercussion and intimidation from the road they frequented on a daily basis.

·      A largely men only club would contribute to an intimidating atmosphere for women on the street. The issue of street harassment of women on the road had been raised with her as a councillor. She had shared these reports with the Safer Neighbourhood Policing team.

·      The concern about harassment of women in the area and the surrounding area led to a recent ward panel meeting hosted by the Safer Neighbourhood team to prioritise women's safety in the Bounds Green ward and had its most recent meeting on the 22 January 2024.

·      There had been no building control for the approval of the premises since it had been reopened. The most recent application was in June 2023, according to the Council's planning portal. There were only a string of refused applications at that address and if the building had not been approved as safe to use by building control, this seemed to be a public safety issue and was relevant to considering a premises licence.

·      A resident who had been in contact with her today, passed by the premises earlier and saw someone smoking inside the premises. This was against the law. Smoking inside the premises should trigger a fire alarm, yet this did not happen today when the resident passed by. It was not clear if the premises had functioning smoke alarms.

·      Residents did not want to publicly object and put their name on a licencing objection when some of the people that who frequented the premises had been described as unfriendly. Older men were intimidating to some local residents who used the shopping facilities in the area.

·      The patrons of the premises had complained about local residents who had expressed concerns about the patrons at the premises to the Bowes Park Community Association and the Wheel of Myddleton Road Group.

·      There was a nursery next door to the premises and the parents and staff who worked there had to negotiate groups of men drinking and smoking outside the doors in groups next to the nursery.

·      The reasons outlined above regarding public nuisance, safety and protecting children from harm provided sufficient reasons why the application should be refused as it could increase public nuisance, crime and disorder and endanger public safety.

 

 

Ms Caroline Simpson informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      She concurred with the comments made by a Councillor Arkell.

·      That was no need for another premises of that nature in the area.

·      Although the applicant had stated that the premises was not a men’s only premises, it did not appear that way as she had never seen a woman enter the premises and she went up and down the street very often.

·      It was detrimental to the area to have another premises such as this in the area and the application should be refused.

·      The hours applied for on the application were too long.

·      If patrons were eating a meal, they may be able to drink alcohol from 23:30 or 00:00.

·      She knew women who worked on the street who stated that they felt uncomfortable about the premises and were not in favour of it getting a premises licence.

 

 

In response to questions, Councillor Arkell informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         In relation to the ward panel meeting, this was usually organised by the Safer Neighbourhood Bounds Green team. There were particular issues with street harassment in Myddleton Road (not necessarily specific to the premises). Working for women’s safety in the area was a priority for the team.

·         Those reporting that they were not comfortable with submitting an objection appeared to be credible as she had received these reports from several individuals who had decided not to submit an objection.

·         Some residents had complained to the Bowes Park Community Association and the Wheel of Myddleton Road Group around some of the issues in the area and this had prompted complaints regarding some of the premises in the area.

·         There had been no complaints from the nursery to her regarding smoking. However, smoking did affect young people and the premises being granted a licence could encourage more smoking in the outside area next to the nursery.

 

To summarise, Mr Lambrou stated he had been running licensed premises for a long time. He got on with everybody in the area. Women did frequent the premises, not as much as men did, but everyone was allowed to visit. The situation with the curtains in conjunction with not being able to put up a sign caused confusion to passers-by. It was not possible for him to put up menus until the issue had been sorted. All individuals were safe in the area.

           

To summarise, Councillor Arkell stated that in relation to public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm, she would urge members of the Sub-Committee listened to residents on the road and the surrounding area. She urged the Sub-Committee to refuse the application. 

 

To summarise, Ms Simpson stated that she did not think the application was necessary for the road and the premises was definitely a male space dominated space. As a woman, she did not feel comfortable with the application or the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded the hearing of this application at 7:58pm and went on to withdraw and consider the application at 8:37pm.

 

 

           

 RESOLVED:

 

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a Premises License at Traditional Cafe & Tea House, 78 Myddleton Road, Wood Green, London, N22 8NQ. It was clarified at the beginning of the meeting that this was a new application and not a variation.  In considering the application, the Committee took account of the London Borough of Haringey’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Act 2003 section 182 Guidance, the report pack, and the applicant’s and objector’s representations. 

 

Having considered the application and heard from all the parties, the Committee decided to GRANT the application subject to the conditions below: 

 

1.    Sale of alcohol ON the Premises  

Monday to Friday- 1800 hours to 2200 hours 

Saturday & Sunday – 1000 hours to 2200 hours. 

 

2.    Hours open to the Public 

Monday Sunday- 0900 hours to 2230 hours 

 

Conditions: 

1.            The premises cannot be operated as a social club for men only. 

2.            The premises shall open to the general public at the hours shown above. 

3.            Place menus in the windows where these are clearly visible 

4.            Alcohol shall only be sold ancillary to patrons consuming a meal and seated at tables. 

5.            No gambling will be permitted on site. 

6.            No gaming machines permitted on site. 

7.            The windows of the premises will be clear to enable a view from the street into the premises. 

 

 

8.            All staff involved in the sale of alcohol shall receive induction and refresher training relating to the sale of alcohol and the times and conditions of the premises licence.  

 

9.            All training relating to the sale of alcohol and the times and conditions of the premises licence shall be documented and records kept at the premises. These records shall be made available to the Police and/or Local Authority upon request and shall be kept for at least one year. 

 

10.          A ‘Think 25’ proof of age scheme shall be operated and relevant material shall be displayed prominently within the Premises – including in a visible location: 

 

(a) At the entrance to the Premises; 

(b) Behind the bar; 

(c) In any other area where alcohol can be purchased by a customer. 

 

11.          A written record of refused sales shall be kept on the premises and completed when necessary. This record shall be made available to Police and/or the Local Authority upon request and shall be kept for at least one year from the date of the last entry. 

 

12.          No alcoholic drinks or glass containers shall be taken out onto the public highway. 

 

13.          The premises licence holder shall ensure that the area immediately outside the premises is kept clean and free from smoking related litter at all material times to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority. 

 

14.          Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly. 

 

15.          Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them. 

 

                        16. A digital CCTV system to be installed in the premises. 

A. Cameras must be sited to observe the entrance doors from both inside and outside. 

B. Cameras on the entrances must capture full frame shots of the heads and shoulders of all people entering the premises i.e. capable of identification. 

C .Cameras must be sited to cover all areas to which the public have access including any outside smoking areas. 

D .Provide a linked record of the date, time of any image. 

E. good quality images - colour during opening times. 

F. Have a monitor to review images and recorded quality. 

G. Be regularly maintained to ensure continuous quality of image capture and retention. 

H. Member of staff trained in operating CCTV at venue during times open to the public. 

I .Digital images must be kept for 31 days. The equipment must have a suitable export method, e.g. CD/DVD writer so that Police can make an evidential copy of the data they require. Copies must be available within a reasonable time to Police on request 

 

17. An incident logbook shall be kept at the Premises and made available on request to a police officer or authorised officer of the Licensing Authority. The logbook shall record the following:  

(a) all crimes reported to the venue; 

(b) All ejections of patrons; 

(c) Any complaints received; 

(d) Any incidents of disorder at or associated with the premises. 

(e) All seizures of drugs and offensive weapons; 

(f) Any faults in the CCTV system 

 

 

REASONS: 

 

The committee gave serious consideration to the submissions by the Applicant and to the concerns raised by the objectors. It was noted that the Police and the Local Authority had raised objections to the application, but had proposed amended conditions to the application, which the applicant had agreed to. It was noted, to the credit of the applicant that he had agreed those conditions prior to the hearing. As such, those conditions are incorporated in the grant of this application. 

Although the application has been granted, it has not been granted in full. In particular, the hours for the sale of alcohol have been limited to between 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM on weekdays. 

 

The committee heard very serious and credible objections from residents and a Councillor for the ward who spoke on behalf of other residents who had indicated that they were worried about speaking and objecting to this particular application. Counsellor Arkell informed the Committee that the application should be rejected on the basis that it would likely only be frequented by men, despite the Applicant’s representations that it was not a men’s only club. The objectors also informed that there had been issues of harassment and an intimidating atmosphere on the street, particularly towards women, and that a safer neighbourhood meeting had been arranged to discuss the situation on the street. During questioning Councillor Arkell accepted the safer neighbourhoods meeting was not held specifically in relation to this establishment, but in relation to the general atmosphere on 78 Myddleton Road, due to the fact that there were already two similar establishments on the street.  

 

Finally, there were also concerns about the fact that the hours requested would be nearly all day, which would entail groups of men drinking and smoking in an establishment right next to a nursery. Further and similar objections were raised by. Caroline Simpson who concurred with the representations by Counsellor Arkell.  

 

Mr Lambrou in support of his application and following questioning both from objectors and the committee indicated that he had been running licenced premises for some 30 years without any complaints. He explained that most of his patrons were elderly, perhaps from 70 to 90 years old and that there had not been any complaints from neighbours.  

 

He confirmed that the alcohol would be served with a meal and so that would avoid any potential for drunkenness or rowdy behaviour. He acknowledged that few women attended his establishment and the potential for an unwelcoming atmosphere, but that by accepting the agreed conditions those concerns had been addressed and that in fact his establishment was open to all.  

 

He explained that the opaque windows would be dealt with and that he was waiting on issues surrounding planning permission but he has agreed to conditions to make the windows transparent.  Furthermore, he also agreed that he would put menus in the windows which would make the venue more inviting for all parties, and not only to a male crowd.  

 

He also indicated that he had not received any complaints from the nursery next to him and that his elderly clientele and patrons had a personal interest in ensuring the area  was safe for women and children. 

 

The Committee after having heard both from the applicant and the objectors took into account all of the factors and noted the serious concerns raised by the objectors, but accepted the assurances given by the applicant in terms of the steps that would be taken and the conditions that have been agreed which would reduce the risk of it becoming a men only club, late drinking or creating an intimidating atmosphere.   

 

The limitation on serving alcohol to only 6pm-10pm during weekdays is tied to the fact that the nursery would be open throughout the day during weekdays and with the aim of achieving the licensing objective of “protecting children from harm”. The grant of the extended hours during the week is consistent with that.  

 

In light of the above, it was deemed that a grant of the application with the above variations and conditions balanced the interest of the applicants, the residents and the licencing objectives. 

 

Appeal rights. 

This decision is open to appeal to the Magistrates Court within the period of 21 days, beginning on the day upon which the apparent is notified of the decision. Stop. This decision does not take effect until the end of the appeal. Or, in the event that an appeal has been lodged, until their appeal is dispensed with.