Agenda item

To consider an objection to a temporary event notice.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

The Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The Police had raised an objection to the Temporary Event Notice (TEN). 

·         A copy of the objection notice could be found in appendix 1.

·         The TEN sought an extension of time for licensable activity on 8 December 2024. This was for the sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment from 00:01 to 02:30.

·         A copy of the premises licence could be found in the agenda papers.

 

 

 

Presentation by the objector  

 

PC Derek Ewart informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The event would undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

·         The event had been shown as a pre-Christmas party booking with a ticketed event stating that there would be food served.

·         There would be recorded music but no live music.

·         The notice stated that there would be a maximum capacity of 50 patrons plus staff and no patrons under 25. There would also be a generally older clientele.

·         There was a mention of four SIA staff being employed at the premises and the various places they would be stationed.

·         There was confusion regarding the maximum number of people in the premises (stated as 70), so there appeared to be two figures - 50 and 70.

·         The premises was situated in the parade of shops along Tottenham High Road.

·         There were residential premises above the location and opposite.

·         Residential properties were embedded above the commercial premises.

·         The notice had a terminal hour of 02:30 and the event would promote a public nuisance to local residents who had the right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

·         In the past, there had been several calls to Police regarding fights at the premises.

·         On 26 October 2024, there were bottles involved in a fight at a private party. At 21:57, somebody from the premises called the Police in order to mitigate the situation. 

·         On 4 October 2024, at 20:00, a fight at the premises had occurred and somebody had called to say that they needed help people and reported people pulling and pushing. 

·         Police resources were despatched to the incident whereby a male who had refused to previously leave, left upon Police arrival.

·         In July 2024, there was an incident whereby somebody reported a smell of cannabis within the premises.

·         An enforcement action taken against the Notice Giver for an event on 13 July 2024 whereby a late TEN had been submitted, which was refused via objection, but the event was held anyway.  The Council carried out enforcement action whereby a caution had been placed.

·         Due to the recent historical incidents at the premises, the event could result in disorder at the premises.

·         The Notice Giver appeared to have no regard for rules, regulations or the law.

 

 

 

In response to questions, PC Derek Ewart informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The amount of incidents relating to disorder and violence was concerning for one location.

·         On 4 October 2026, uniformed officers attended the premises to speak with the premises who asked for help. This was in reference to the male individual that was causing issues at the premises.

·         The information Police had was off the police database systems. Due diligence was performed when any data was received.

 

Presentation by the Notice Giver 

 

The Notice Giver’s representative, Mr Tekleweni Ghebreselassie, informed the Sub-Committee that: 

 

·         The event was for Christmas and was a cooperative booking. A guests list would be used.

·         There would be no ID checks. 

·         The premises would fully adhere to the conditions of the licence.

·         The premises would have eight to ten staff members. A total of four SIA staff.

·         There would be around 74 persons present at the premises.

·         The premises had learned a lot from the past.

·         In relation to the prevention of crime and disorder, there were robust security measures including presence of SIA staff, to be placed in different areas. On several occasions, whenever something occurred, premises staff always knew to call the Police. A large group of people on 6 September 2024, 4 October 2024 and on 26 October 2024, a large group of people forced themselves into the premises with a box of alcohol and were very aggressive.

·         The Notice Giver had taken immediate action to safeguard the premises and contacted the Police for assistance. There was documented evidence including CCTV and other video evidence on a phone.

·         In relation to public nuisance, a lot of measures had been taken such as sound proofing measures. The premises had two soundproof doors at the entrance to limit noise leakage.

·         Sound had been tested with the help of the landlord the premises. The people living upstairs had never complained about any noise.

·         Investment would be made on a sound limiter.

·         An ID scanner would be introduced.

·         Smoking was strictly prohibited near the entrance. Patrons would be directed to the designated smoking area. Only four to five people are allowed to occupy that space at one time. 

·         In relation to public safety, the premises had installed 18 CCTV cameras covering all key areas.

·         Incident reporting documentation was maintained fully. In relation to the incident on 7 July 2024 the premises had a ‘zero tolerance policy’ toward illegal activity.

·         If additional information was available regarding the incident, then it could be sent to the premises.

 

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

 

·         The group of people who had invaded the premises were known to Police.

·         There had never been a drug related incident at the premises. 

·         Only the Police could stop the group. At the time of the incident, they were very intoxicated with a large quantity of drinks in hand.

·         It was not clear why the group attacked the premises or choose the premises itself. 

·         It had happened for the last to three months and the premises need some advice from Police.

·         A company had booked their Christmas party at the premises.

·         There would be a guest list by the door and an ID would be checked. 

·         One TEN held at the premises had resulted in no complaints. Three consecutive proposed TENs had to be cancelled. 

·         The premises needed the business to survive due to various running costs such as rent.

·         All attempts needed to be made to ensure everything was done according the licencing objectives.

·         The booking would be cancelled if the Sub-Committee issued a counter notice. 

·         In relation to the incident with the individuals. The first one was considered to be a random incident. A discussion had been held with Police the premises staff felt they did not wish to create other problems by pursuing the matter. 

 

 

To summarise, PC Ewart stated that the objection had to be proportionate to the concerns raised and on the evidence of incidents, there was a genuine risk of disorder. His objection was not solely speculative.  He had evidenced that by the incidents mentioned. The Notice Giver agreed that there had been incidents at the premises. Case law stated that the local authority may consider the historical context such as previous events leading to disorder and therefore it was valid to issue a counter notice by paying attention to the specific nature of any risks. It was important to pay attention to past events and also balance that risk against allowing the event to proceed. 

 

To summarise, Mr Ghebreselassie stated that his responses addressed the points raised in the objection and demonstrated the premises commitment to the upholding the licensing objectives. The premises remained dedicated to fostering a safe responsible environment for patrons and the community. Four TENs had been submitted. One was successful and three had been rejected. The premises should be given a chance to show it could meet the licensing objectives.

 

 

Adjournment and Decision

 

At 8:46pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from all those who spoke. Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to issue a counter notice. 

 

RESOLVED: To issue a counter notice.

 

The Sub-Committee gave due consideration to the submissions made by the Notice Giver and his representative, and to the concerns raised by the objector to the notice both orally and in writing.

 

The Sub-Committee decided to issue a counter notice as it considers it necessary for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives.

 

REASONS

It was noted that the previous Temporary Event Notice “TEN” had not been granted, however the event still took place at the venue. The Sub-Committee considered the representations from the Notice Giver’s representative that the Notice Giver had been unaware that the TEN had not been granted to be incredible, further they concluded that it was irresponsible of the Notice Giver to proceed with the event without carrying out diligent checks of the response from the Authority on the application of the TEN.

 

The Sub-Committee gave due regard to the Notice Giver’s representative who submitted that previous incidents that had taken place within the premises were of no fault of the Notice Giver and that the Notice Giver required assistance to ensure that further incidents took place. The Sub-Committee considered that a responsible Notice Giver would have made immediate or timely contact with the Police and Authority to inform them of any issues that may be of concern and could risk the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and public safety being upheld. The Notice Giver did not take such action, and the Sub- Committee concluded that there was a risk that the Licensing objective would not be upheld.

 

The Police wished to object to the temporary event under the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, public safety and prevention of crime and disorder.

 

The Sub-Committee considered that there would be a creation of or an increase in Public Nuisance through noise nuisance at the premises if the event were to proceed and the premises were to open for the requested hours.

 

There were residential homes above and surrounding the premises. There were concerns that there would be substantial noise from the premises which could disturb the residents. Consideration was given to the fact that that there have been previous complaints of noise nuisance from the premises and there had now been 3 reports to the Police of incidents within the premises within 7 weeks. The Sub-Committee noted that the reports of incidents inside the premises was significant and unusual. The Sub-Committee did not have confidence that the event would proceed without risks to the licensing objectives being upheld. The Sub-Committee resolved that the licensing objectives of public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance would not be promoted if the event was allowed to proceed.