Agenda item

To consider an application for a new premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

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

 

·         The application sought late night refreshment and the sale of alcohol, which would be supplied on and off the premises. The premises would be open to the public Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 01:00 and 11:00 to 02:00 Friday to Saturday.

·         The applicant was also requesting a terminal hour of 02:00 on Valentine's Day, Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

·         Representations had been submitted by the Noise team, Police and a resident.

·         Page 17 onwards had the proposed conditions put forward on the application itself.

·         The applicant had been informed earlier in the day in relation to the use of the premises regarding the hours. The current planning permission for the premises meant that the applicant would not be able to operate beyond its allowed planning hours, shown at section 2.1 in the report.

 

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

Mr Nick Semper, representative for the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The applicant was an experienced and successful operator. He had been involved in running restaurants for many years and owned two other businesses in the same road, so he knew the area and the people.

·         In all those years, the premises he ran never came to the attention of any responsible authority.

·         The premises used to be a top-class Caribbean Grill which opened from 10:00 to 23:00 daily.

·         The premises would be a restaurant called Love Latin and would specialise in Mediterranean cuisine. Alcohol would only be served to a to seated diners and would be ancillary to a substantial table meal.

·         Alcohol would only be served by waiter or waitress service. Only alcohol for consumption off the premises would be sold only via take away or collection order. These may only be provided in sealed containers, marked as originating from the premises itself and provided to the customer within the packaging of a takeaway food order.

·         Patrons would not be permitted to remove drinks in open bottles or glasses or any other open vessel from the premises.

·         The hours applied for were not excessive, because having dealt with many restaurants in the night time economy himself, the hours applied for were less than quite a few of the ones he had dealt with in the past.

·         The applicant sought for a terminal hour of 01:00 Sunday to Thursday and 02:00 on Fridays and Saturdays.

·         The conditions proposed in the operating schedule were designed to ensure robust promotion of the licencing objectives and a safe, legal and compliant operation in every respect.

·         It was not until earlier this afternoon that he finally managed to obtain documents relating to the planning permission to convert the premises into a restaurant. This dated from 2020 and the planning decision made then still stood.

·         The premises could not operate in any form after 2300 and the applicant would not operate beyond those hours due to planning restrictions. However, the applicant was also in the process of engaging a planning consultant to apply for later opening times.

·         If the application was granted at the terminal hour of 23:00, then a variation application would need to be submitted. This was why the applicant was respectfully asking for the later terminal hour, in the full knowledge that the later hours could not be traded upon lawfully, until the planning process was concluded.

·         The burden was on the applicant to show that the proposed operation supported by the proposed operating schedule was capable of promoting the licencing objectives and was unlikely to undermine them.

·         The objectors had the burden to show that the premises trading under the operating schedule would undermine the licencing objectives and demonstrate it with evidence.

·         Any Sub-Committee properly advised could only refuse this application if it was found on the evidence of the objectors to be not capable of promoting the licencing objectives.

·         In Paragraph 9.43 in section 182 of the guidance clearly stated that the Sub-Committee’s determination must be evidence based, justified as being appropriate for promotional licencing objectives and proportionate to what it was intended to achieve.

·         There was no evidence in the agenda papers which challenged, criticises or even referenced the operating schedule, the applicant or the designated premises Supervisor. This included any other business operated by the applicant.

·         There was no history of disorder, noise complaints, underage sales, or any other cause for concern evidenced involving the premises or the applicant or any other of his operations. This was an undeniable and self-evident fact.

 

 

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

 

·         The applicant intended to have a delivery collection facility over the counter, but also to work with companies like Just Eats and Uber Eats. This was the normal operating model for most restaurants around the UK in the night time economy.

·         If delivery drivers made too much noise, the applicant would not be dealing with them again, would advise them of it and get rid of them and make a complaint to the delivery company. The applicant would not work with delivery drivers creating a disturbance outside their premises because that was not in their business model and was bad for business.

·         Based on the current opening hours, if the business wanted to succeed and serve the community it had known for a long time, restricting the hours would restrict the promotion and the expansion of the business. Extended hours would create jobs for the local people and have a positive impact.

·         The premises was not a vertical drinking establishment. It was an intimate dining experience for people that liked Latin or Mediterranean food. It was for patrons such as couples.

·         Patrons typically smoked at the back area of the premises, but there was no designated smoking area. The applicant could offer a limit of four or five smokers outside.

 

 

The Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that premises used to be a West Indian Caribbean take away. The applicant was now wanting to open up a new business. The applicant was not currently operating at the premises. 

 

 

Presentation by interested parties  

 

PC Pantelitsa informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The premises was embedded within a parade of shops with residential premises above and opposite it.

·         The Police had submitted a representation and the applicant had agreed to four conditions being added to the operating schedule, but not to reducing the operating hours.

·         The four conditions included a direct telephone number for the management at the premises to being made available to all the residents and businesses in the vicinity, the supply of alcohol at the premises only being to a seated patron ordering a substantial table meal, the supply of alcohol being served by waiter and waitress service only and that all sealed containers of alcoholic drinks for consumption off the premises must being clearly labelled and marked with the name and post code of the premises.

·         The Police were objecting to the operating hours the applicant had put forward as the area was a residential area and there was a risk that loud noise from the premises would carry over and cause disturbance to nearby residents, disrupting their sleep.

·         Patrons leaving the premises when it closed at 01:00 and 02:00 were likely to leave intoxicated by loitering or walking down the road.

·         There was likelihood of antisocial behaviour.

·         The noise would be worse for local residents and likely to cause a significant sleep disturbance on nights prior to their working day, especially if they had to get up early in the morning to go to work.

·         The hours proposed would mean the premises will be open for longer than any other licenced premises on West Green Road.

·         All the other premises in the area Sunday to Thursday closed around 23:00 or 23:30 and at 01:00 on Friday and Saturday.

·         If the application was granted with the hours applied for, then patrons would be leaving from other establishments that closed earlier and make their way to the premises and become even more intoxicated.

·         Other operators in the area would hear about the hours granted by the Sub-Committee and would apply to vary their operating hours.

·         This would have an effect in the whole area, disrupt disrupting residents, quality of life and peace in their house.

·         She objected to the hours requested and thought they were excessive given the geographical and the proximity to resident homes.

·         If the applicant agreed and accepted operating hours in line with other premises in the area which was a terminal hour of 23:00 Sunday to Thursday and 01:00 Friday and Saturday, she would not object to that.

 

Ms Jennifer Barrett, Noise and Nuisance Officer, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The initial representation raised concerns about the proposed hours of operation. The offer of late-night refreshment until 02:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, along with the concerns regarding the operating schedule did not provide sufficient detail.

·         Discussions had been held with the applicant to clarify their proposed business model. The applicant had clarified that the premises would not be a nightclub but a ‘sit-down’ restaurant.

·         Operational aspects of the business had been discussed and concerns had been addressed, namely, noise from public nuisance. The only remaining issue was the issue were the operating hours.

·         Planning had clarified that the hours of operation requested by the applicant were not in accordance with the planning permission. The permission stipulated that the operating hours should be shorter than the hours applied for.

·         There was no objection to the application in principle or the provision of late-night refreshment. However, the operating hours requested exceeded permitted hours and were not in accordance with the planning permission.

 

 

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

 

·         She would accept the Police’s proposed terminal hour of 23:00 Sunday to Thursday and 01:00 Friday and Saturday.

 

 

To summarise, Mr Semper stated that the silent party in this application was a resident who had objected to the application, but was unable to attend the meeting. The resident had raised concerns about crime and disorder in the area and feared that granting the application could exacerbate issues. The representation described the premises as a bar within a club, which aligned with the behaviours observed outside vertical drinking establishments. It was crucial to emphasise that the premises would offer an intimate dining experience for couples who primarily consumed alcohol as an ancillary purchase to a substantial table meal. He appreciated the Police’s suggestions for the application, however, he found it difficult to accept the notion that after 23:00, drunken patrons would descend upon an intimate dining establishment and cause disruptions. The scenario did not align with the customer clientele or the applicant’s business objectives. The application was supported by a comprehensive set of effective conditions and he hoped the Sub-Committee would grant it.

 

To summarise, PC Pantelitsa expressed objection to the application’s terminal hours of 01:00 and 02:00. Whilst the applicant had clarified that the premises was generally for couples, the premises would host parties possibly with up to 15 guests. The specific food and beverages of these patrons remained uncertain. The restaurant’s current designation as a “couples-only” establishment, but there were no other restaurants that exclusively catered to couples. There were potential risks associated with hosting parties at the premises, including the possibility of intoxicated guests engaging or loud talking. The premises needed to adhere to the established 23:00 terminal hour along with the 01:00 terminal hour for Fridays and Saturdays.

 

To summarise, Ms Jennifer Barrett stated that there was some a lack of clarity in the initial application as to the business model and this had been clarified. The applicant had specified the hours requested, but this was in excess of what was currently permissible under the planning regulations. If the applicant was minded to consider the hours as suggested by the Police, she would have more comfort about the applicant’s ability to implement the public nuisance controls.

 

The Sub-Committee would later withdraw to consider the application.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a Premises

License at 78 West Green Road, Tottenham, N15 5NS.

 

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:

 

Late Night Refreshment

Sunday to Thursday 2300 to 0100 hours

Friday to Saturday 2300 to 0200 hours

 

Sale of Alcohol

Sunday to Thursday 1100 to 2300 hours

Friday to Saturday 1100 to 0100 hours subject to planning restrictions being varied

Supply of alcohol ON and OFF the premises.

 

The above licensable activities extended to 0200hrs on Valentine's Day,

Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

 

Hours open to Public

Sunday to Thursday 1100 to 0100 hours

Friday to Saturday 1100 to 0200 hours

 

Extended to 0200hrs on Valentine's Day, Christmas Eve and New Year'sEve.

CONDITIONS:

 

The Committee requires the Applicant to adhere to the Conditions proposed by

the Applicant at pages 17-19 of the Committee papers (sections 18-21 of the

Application pack) in addition to the following conditions:

 

1. There must be no alcohol drunk outside the premises.

 

2. The supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a

substantial table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal.

 

3. The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only.

 

4. All sealed containers of alcoholic drinks sold for consumption off the premises must be clearly labelled or marked with the name and postcode of the premises.

 

5. No more than 3 smokers outside the premises at any one time.

 

6. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

REASONS:

 

The committee gave serious consideration to the submissions by the Applicant and to the concerns raised by the objectors.

 

It was noted that there were objections to the very late hours proposed by the

applicant from both the Police and the Noise Team. Those objections can be summed up by the view there would be a contravention of the principle to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder. It was very likely that customers leaving at such late hours may be intoxicated causing significant sleep disturbance, likely to cause noise nuisance. It was also noted by the Police that other premises close earlier and their patrons may be tempted to come to this establishment due to its late hours thereby causing further nuisance on leaving.

 

It was noted, to the credit of the applicant that he had agreed additional conditions

with the Police to alleviate the above concerns and the notice team also indicated that there was no objection in principal once these conditions were agreed- save the late hours being in excess of the current planning permission. That also remained the objection of the Police, particularly as the hours requested would be well in excess of the times for similar nearby premises. The Applicant maintained that the business was mainly a restaurant for couples to create a romantic environment. However, the Police representations maintained and the Committee found credible, that it was more than likely the restaurant would operate like all Restaurants with more than just couples as clientele and would as normal attract groups and parties.

 

It was also noted and acknowledged by the Applicant that there is in fact a planning

restriction in place which means, even if the Committee granted the extra hours the

applicant cannot operate beyond 0700-2300 hours. The Applicant gave assurances

that the premises would not operate beyond these hours, even if granted until

planning permission was obtained.

 

It was evident to the Committee that the late sale of alcohol in such a premises would contribute to potential public nuisance and & disorder and agreed to reduce to the hours for late sale of alcohol to 11pm, as per the norm with similar business and the planning restriction, but did allow up to 1am on Fridays and Saturdays (subject to the planning restriction), which is again in line with nearby business.

 

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. 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.