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:

 

·      The application was seeking an increase of licensing hours on Friday for regulated entertainment from 22:00 to 01:00, late night refreshment from 23:00 to 01:00 and the sale of alcohol from 10:00 to 01:00 for consumption on the premises. The terminal hour for the closure of the premises would be 01:30.

·      Representations had been made from the Noise and Nuisance team and residents both in support and against the application.

·      There were residential properties in the surrounding area and the premises was located near to another licensed premises, a pub, which only operated on home matchdays for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

·      There was another licensed premises which also was a pub and this was located near the premises as well.

·      The Planning Officer had advised that the current planning permission only allowed for the premises to operate until 23:00 on any day and any proposal to play music, live concerts or amplified music required planning permission.

 

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

Mr Liam O’Hare, representative for the applicant and Ms Sarah Colgate, applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Since the premises had been taken over by the applicant a year ago, the applicant had transformed it from being a football matchday space to something more akin to the more traditional role the premises would have served in the past.

·      Open seven days a week, the applicant saw the premises as having the potential to offer a more diverse and exciting premises for the community.

·      Street parties for the King's coronation had been organised and a function room was offered free of charge for all of the community to use any day of the week. This had been done by building a space for everyone to feel at home and creating a space which was welcoming and fun. The premises had hosted wedding parties, children’s parties, school parties, Christmas parties and Sit and Paint evenings. Trader partnership evenings had also been held and this helped build and serve the community.

·      The applicant was seeking a couple of extra hours on Fridays.

·      Saturdays were run weekly since reopening with no negative impact on the licencing objectives. This must be apparent to the Sub-Committee as there were no responsible authorities present at the meeting. This was a vote of confidence from the experts on the present operation and the way it had conducted itself by promotion of the four key licencing objectives at the core of its operation.

·      The applicant recognised there was a planning informative, but believed there was no breach in planning regulation. The reasons raised by Planning and what it was trying to achieve by the proposed condition were ably protected by the Licencing Act.

·      Steps taken to address any noise issues had been agreed between the applicant and the Noise and Nuisance team. All of the conditions suggested were already in place operationally and had just been formalised by bringing them into the licence.

·      The Council's experts in the field had agreed with the applicant regarding operations on the premises and that they were not present at the meeting should provide confidence to the Sub-Committee because of the operation and the way it was run to such a high standard.

·      A second opinion was sought from Keystone Law who negotiated the lease for the applicant and the planning application was granted for a function room where music would be played. The wording of the condition prohibited live concerts and other sounds emanating from the premises in such a way to cause a nuisance after 23:00 to an adjacent occupier. The condition would only be a breach if music, live concerts and other amplified sound emanated from the site after 23:00 and that was to cause a nuisance in the opinion of the Environmental Health Service. If such activities took place after 23:00, but did not cause a nuisance, as the applicant had been operating for the last year on Saturdays, there was no breach of condition.

·      If the Sub-Committee was minded to accept a variation request, there was to be an additional 17 conditions added to the licence to reduce crime, address noise, nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

·      In relation to noise nuisance specifically, the suggested condition was amplified music and bass would not be played at a level that would cause unreasonable disturbance to the occupants of any of the properties in the vicinity. There were another four similar conditions to this. This was why the Noise and Nuisance team was not present at the meeting.

·      The applicant had also operated, since the premises opened, a limiter on the sound system and that reduced noise impact on the residents. Residents also lived above the premises and this had been managed very well.

·      To those residents not familiar with the premises, the applicant extended a warm invitation to them and would offer telephone numbers or email addresses so that they could make direct contact with the applicant.

·      Security would be present providing the area with more surveillance, more protection and better residential amenity. It also meant that complaints could be dealt with in real time, professionally with a balance between trading and operation respectfully in the area.

·      The applicant employed a broad range of strategies to promote violence against women and girls. Ask for Angela was in place to protect vulnerable people and the applicant was vigilant on drink spiking.

·      Patrons to the premises had changed from football fan visitors to regular members of the community.

           

 

In response to questions, Mr O’Hare and Ms Colgate informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

 

·      There were a number of policies in place when events had concluded. The front area was used to contain guests so anybody waiting for buses or taxis could wait in the waiting area, not outside in the street. The space was also a place where patrons could charge their phone so that women would not have to leave the premises with a low charge on their phone.

·      The premises was located by large bin full this bin was subject to a lot of litter. The applicant considered the outside of the premises as its own space and took pride in the area to make sure that the area was safe and presentable. The applicant would be happy to accept a condition that the area would be cleaned during hours of operation as the applicant already did this.

·      Patrons and those needing toilet facilities could use them.

·      They had seen and heard about public urination outside the immediate premises and although premises staff would take responsiblity to deal with this, it was not possible for the applicant to deal with every issue occurring in the outside area.

·      CCTV had been placed outside the premises and residents who lived across the road had commented that they felt much safer and seen a reduction in drug use in their alleyways and sort of entrances.

·      Signature resembling a petition had been collected by asking patrons to support the application in the manner of a short statement written above the petition itself. The petition was not forced on patron.

 

 

At this point in the proceedings, Ms Barrett clarified that the petition had not been forced on patrons, but had not come in time for the consultation period and there were no valid addresses on the petition itself. However, the Sub-Committee could still consider the document.

 

In response to further questions, Mr O’Hare and Ms Colgate informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      The premises was a small independent business facing a difficult economic situation. Itwas important to build economic resilience so that the longevity of the business could be assured. That was a demand in the community and the premises hosted weddings, birthday parties and other events. In order to meet this demand, Saturdays had been booked throughout the summer period. However, the terminal hour of 23:00 was not late enough for many patrons and therefore the premises was losing out on business as patrons sought other venues.

·      The Mayor of London had identified a 18:00 to 06:00 economy and those who worked in this economy was part of the community.   

·      The applicant had an extreme sensitivity to the residents that lived above the premises, across from the premises and next to the premises. The applicant had letters of support from residents, but also from those who were anxious of larger crowds becoming a regular weekly occurrence. The applicant was trying to manage its own crowd and put in place a gradual dispersal policy. This partly depended on having taxis collecting patrons from the premises. It was positive that many of the patrons were women, some of whom who came in on their own and some who lived in the area.

 

·      The applicant had spoken to the Police who was satisfied that the premises was meeting its objectives for the prevention of crime and disorder. Environmental Health had also agreed conditions with the premises to assuage any concerns that local residents may have.

 

·      The premises only used plastic or reusable containers and did not allow glass to be taken outside the premises. Anybody who wished to use the toilet could do so and signs had been put up at the premises to inform patrons to leave quietly. Residents had also been given the phone number to the premises to let the applicant know if there were any issues. 

 

 

At this point in the proceedings, Ms Barrett stated that the premises operated across the week and it was another premises that was only open on football matchdays. Another licensed premises also operated in the area and faced the High Road which had a terminal hour on Friday and Saturday until 00:30. This could cause the impact of one premises closing and patrons then going to another premises in the area which would be open later. In relation to the provision of toilets, this was covered by Tottenham Hotspur and additional infrastructure that needed to be put in place for sporting or other special events. In relation to glass, it was up to the Sub-Committee to decide requirements regarding the use of glass containers that the premises may have.

           

Presentation by interested parties

 

Ms Anita Lashley, resident supporting the application, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      She had lived in the area for 36 years.

·      Before the premises had opened under the current operator, she would walk past it as it did not look very inviting, but last summer after it had been reopened, she found herself becoming a patron of the premises and went to play a game of pool and drink a soft drink. The premises had become a safe place for her to have a drink on her own.

·      The premises was secure and she had built up some good friendships. 

·      After work, she was able to go into the premises and have a drink.

·      The premises was community focused and during the King’s coronation, there was a large street party which had food stalls and the wider community had joined in. This was a fun day for the Tottenham area.

·      During Christmas time, a tree was put up and carols were sung.

·      The premises tried to bring the community together by putting on events and could be likened to a community centre.

 

           

To summarise, the fortune of the premises had been transformed since it had been taken over by the applicant and her team and the local community was taking advantage of facilities and investment had been made to bring the premises into the modern era. Pubs had lost its community spirit and the applicant was trying to reignite this.The applicant was asking for extra hours to take advantage of Friday openings at the stadium nearby, but also for residents who get free use of space. This kept money circulating in the local economy. The applicant ran a successful business and was looking to expand. The business needed to build financial resilience. There were no responsible authorities present at the meeting. The Sub-Committee should give this consideration when determining the licence. The conditions agreed with the Noise and Nuisance team would directly address noise issues in a more robust way than the planning conditions which was set with ambiguity.  What would be in place would be a modern premises licence with checks and balances in place. The applicant hoped to make the premises a place for everyone in the area.

 

To summarise, Ms Lashley stated that the diversity of the community in age and culture made the premises a diverse home for functions such as birthday parties, engagements, weddings and children's parties.

 

 

At 8:37pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew to consider the application.

 

           

RESOLVED:

 

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a variation of the Premises License at The Victoria Tottenham, 34 Scotland Green, Tottenham, London, N17 9TT. 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, the applicant’s and objectors’ written representations. 

 

Having considered the application and heard from all the parties, the Committee decided to GRANT the application and was satisfied that the Licence could be varied to include the following: 

 

1.    Regulated Entertainment: recorded music 

Friday- to 1000 to 0030. 

 

2.    Late Night Refreshment 

Friday- to 1000 to 0030. 

 

3.    Sale of alcohol. 

Friday- to 1000 to 0030. 

Supply of alcohol ON the Premises 

 

4.    Hours open to the public 

Friday 1000 to 0100 

 

CONDITONS 

Prevention of crime & disorder 

 

· A digital CCTV system to be installed in the premises and cameras must be sited to 

observe the entrance doors from both inside and outside. 

 

· 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. 

 

· Cameras must be sited to cover all areas to which the public have access including 

any outside smoking areas. 

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

· good quality images - colour during opening times. 

· Have a monitor to review images and recorded quality. 

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

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

· 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 

· 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 and should be completed within 24 hours of the incident: 

· (a) all crimes reported to the IN 

· (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. 

· (g) Any refusal of the sale of alcohol 

· (h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. 

 

Prevention of public nuisance 

 

· Amplified music and bass shall not be played at a level that will cause unreasonable 

disturbance to the occupants of any properties in the vicinity. 

 

· No music will be played in, or for the benefit of patrons in any external areas of the 

premises, including the rear garden. 

 

· The use of the rear garden area shall terminate at 2230 hrs on days when regulated 

entertainment is being provided. 

 

· All windows and external doors shall be kept closed after 22:30 hours, or at any time 

when regulated entertainment takes place, except for the immediate access and 

egress of persons. 

 

Patrons must not drink from glass bottles or glasses outside of the Premises.  

 

The Protection of Children from harm 

 

· 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. 

 

· 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. 

 

REASONS 

 

The Committee gave serious consideration to the application and heard from the supporters of the applicant who were present at the hearing, as well as the written objections presented to the committee. 

 

The committee acknowledged the strength of the application in terms of the positive impact the applicant’s business has had on the surrounding area and that there was strong support for the application. 

 

In response to issues of concern raised by the written objections, the Councillors queried the applicant over various issues. The committee acknowledged in response to questioning that the business had policies in place, for the late night dispersal of Patrons, for clearing away litter, and for patrons waiting for taxis not to have to wait outside. The Committee acknowledged that the urination may not be directly as a result of patrons from the applicant’s business. The committee acknowledged the offer by the applicant to clear away litter from outside its premises regardless of who it was generated by. They also stated that they provide plastic glasses to be taken outside already.  

 

However, the Committee noted that there was a serious concern about the impact to residents of increasing the hours on the one remaining evening (Friday) as requested. The applicant already has increased hours for the other days. It was also noted that there were 2 other pubs with late hours.   The objections related to the increased noise from patrons late into the evening, the associated litter, and patrons gathering outside of the property late into the night either to drink or smoke outside of the premises. 

 

The committee did note that the applicant had engaged with residents and had put forward a plan to limit noise using the plans described above as well as having a noise limiter, which is already being used.  

 

The Committee had regard to the Haringey Council’s policy, which states “although the council will treat each on its individual merits, generally, it will not grant permission for licensable activities beyond 2330 hours on Sundays to Thursdays and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, in respect of public houses situated in areas having denser residential accommodation. The Council would expect good reasons to be given to support any application for extensions beyond these hours including addressing possible disturbance to residents and local parking. Additionally, in these areas, consideration would be given to imposing stricter conditions in respect of noise control.” 

 

It was noted that this was a dense residential area and that there were already two other similar pubs in the area, which is a cul-de- sac. In order to balance the rights of the applicant and the residents and having considered the licencing policy, it was agreed that the application should be granted, but with a reduction in the hours requested to 00:30 with closing hours at 01:00 rather than 01:30 as had been requested. The committee noted that the later closing hours  would inevitably mean more noise from patrons drinking and smoking, possibly outside of the premises later into the night which would impact on the quality of life for the neighbouring residents.  

 

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 appellant is notified of the decision. This decision does not take effect until the end of the appeal period or, in the event that an appeal has been lodged, until the appeal is dispensed with.