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 applicant was seeking the timings shown on page 1.1 of the Licensing Officer’s report.

·         The hours open to the public would be from Sunday to Wednesday 08:00 to 00:30, Thursday 08:00 to 01:00 and Friday to Saturday 08:00 to 01:30, with sale of alcohol terminating half an hour before the terminal hour. 

·         The application could be found on appendix 1 in the agenda papers.

·         Representations had been submitted by various residents. A letter of support and a petition had been submitted by the applicant.

·         A dispersal policy had been submitted along with some CCTV footage.

·         The premises had operated as a public house for many years and had been operated by various businesses in the past in the last five years

·         An existing licence was in place and was part of the agenda papers.

·         The external front was surrounded by residential properties and no time had been offered for the use of the rear shisha area which was also an external area.

·         There was an attempt to get planning permission for a shisha area when it was under a different operator. It had been refused, but complications regarding planning legislation meant the area could be used by the applicant in any case. However, the area was still not a compliant shisha area in terms of the Health Act.

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

Mr Robert Sutherland, representing the applicant and Ms Bianca Mali, the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         In relation to the external area, there was a condition on the current licence which referred to a terminal hour for the use of the front area of the premises. This was an external terrace area on the current licence said that it would cease to be used at 21:00 Monday to Sunday. This was intended to continue.

·         In relation to the shisha area, they were not looking to address the Sub-Committee regarding the matter.

·         In relation to the application, there had been an agreed set of conditions found towards the end of the agenda papers bundle. One of these had been amended which stated that the rear external area could be used until closing time, but the roof was to be closed at 22:30, after which no shisha was to be offered unless it was electronic shisha with no tobacco content. This condition was agreed apart from the hours at which the roof was closed. The applicant would like the terminal hour to be 00:00 or, preferably, until closing time. 

·         The applicant had been in the hospitality industry for around 10 years managing and operating licensed premises.

·         The applicant grew up in her family's business where she gained experience in being a responsible operator dealing with alcohol and being compliant with the law. She had also completed her level two award for her personal licence. She also had run a premises in London with her husband - a coffee shop – although not alcohol related, it gave her valuable experience in customer service, having good relationships with residents and engaging with the community. This helped her to manage her current business in a professional and responsible way.

·         Running such a business had been her dream for a long time and she had used her life savings and had sought help from family members.

·         She had signed a 20-year open lease because she believed in her business. She was not here to work one year under a cloud of trouble and leave. This was why she undertook refurbishment work, renovated the kitchen, installed CCTV cameras, decorated the premises to create a safe and welcoming environment.

·         As a woman in business, she had faced many challenges including gender bias and the perception that women were less capable than men in leadership roles.

·         She had engaged with consulting the Council's Noise and Nuisance Authority to understand concerns about noise before hiring an acoustic consultant. She sought approval from the Council and had hired an acoustic consultant.

 

In response to questions, Mr Sutherland and Ms Mali informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The proposed changed to operating hours was an attempt to address the balance of creating a viable business whilst not creating nuisance, crime or disorder. Checks had been made to ensure that no noise nuisance was created.

·         The only disagreement with the Nosie and Nuisance Officer was the closing of the roof to the rear. It had been proposed that the roof be closed at 22:30 and the applicant would like it closed at a slightly later time.

·         Discussions with the Police had been held and they had accepted the conditions proposed by the applicant. The Police did not have a substantial concern in relation to the operation of the premises.

·         In order to be able to operate with the use of shisha lawfully, it was necessary for the relevant part of the roof to remain open.  The applicant had suggested 00:00 for the closure of the roof, but the applicant was generally looking for a terminal hour later than 22:30. Only vaping would be allowed in the area after the roof closed. 

·         The applicant engaged with local residents to understand past issues and to assure them that she would not mirror past issues from previous operators. The applicant had sent residents letters, knocked on their doors and invited them to the premises as the applicant wanted to cooperate and be a positive part of the community.More than 60 people had signed a petition in support giving positive feedback and welcoming the premises as a good addition to the area. The applicant had listened to concerns, taken proactive steps as she wanted to run her business in a responsible way. The Noise and Nuisance team had confirmed that while 61 complaints were made between 2022 to June 2024, none of them had been verified and no abatement notice had been issued.Anytime the premises had operated until 01:00, the premises was authorised to do so and also had used its full allocation for Temporary Event Notices for 2024 with no issues. The intention was to maintain the relationship that had been built up with a number of the residents. There was a reference in the conditions to making contact numbers available. Operators would be prepared to meet on a six-monthly basis if necessary.

·         A letter had been sent to the residents announcing a newly renovated restaurant coffee shop and providing a general introduction to the business. Residents were encouraged to communicate any opinions.

·         CCTV recording would be available within seven days’ time upon request, but the applicant would agree to shorter time period.  

·         There had been extensive reporting instigated at the request of the operators because of concerns about noise from the premises. This was not something which had been ignored, but had been acted upon very seriously. The report stated that noise from people speaking could not be heard away from the premises. In relation to music, the report stated that there would be a noise limiter and there had been discussion with the Noise team about what level would be appropriate. A level had been agreed. There would be no music noise escaping from the premises. There was a condition which reflected that on the licence. There was also a condition which ensured that there was no noise generated on the premises from equipment on the premises or through the structure of the premises. Proposed conditions 13 and 20 dealt with noise limitation and this should ensure that any music played inside of the premises was not heard outside of the premises.

·         The applicant would be happy to visit residents’ home to monitor any noise issues from the premises.

·         It was not normal practice for the premises to operate with fireworks. On one occasion there had been fireworks from around 00:00 on New Year's Eve into New Year's Day. This was generally not an unusual practice. This was a small display for the benefit of the community and patrons. It was not intended that there would be a firework display other than perhaps on New Year's Eve. There was no intention to cause any harm to pets.

·         The noise limit would be set in agreement the Noise team to enable music to be played. The noise complaints made had never been verified and never corroborated. No officers ever witnessed noise from music escape from the premises. The conditions on the licence would prevent any noise escaping from the premises in any case. 

·         The request of CCTV footage would be provided. The meeting of the request in relation to the provision of footage in a timely manner should take a common-sense approach. Some requests could involve the need to provide significant amount of data due to the number of cameras the footage had been requested. This could take a certain period of time, but should not take more than about a day.

·         In respect of a zero policy in relation to drugs, this was already in effect. Performing searches in relation to drugs required SIA staff. Such staff would operate when the premises would run for later hours in the day. The searching policy would be random and intelligence led. Appropriate signage would be on display at the premises, searches would only take place in view of cameras and any items seized would be retained safely. Items could be retained within a safe, Police would be notified and records would be kept in an incident book.

·         The reason the application was submitted was to make sure that the conditions proposed were robust and enforceable. The operators would be judged by their compliance. If this was not forthcoming, the applicant could be prosecuted the licence could be reviewed. Residents could be assured that the operators would comply with the licence because their claims were being backed up through conditions. The conditions not yet agreed involved the closing of the roof at 22:30. 

·         The zero-tolerance policy to the supply and use of drugs could be put in writing.

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

Mr Craig Bellringer, Noise and Nuisance Officer, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         In relation to the closure of the roof, the Noise team had received 17 complaints from local residents which had not been verified. When officers had attended, no nuisance had been witnessed or they had not been able to go inside someone's property to assess the noise from inside.

·         The Noise team had observed the 14 temporary events the premises had held. However, the roof had to be closed at 22:30. The event in the rear area could continue until 01:00. This was sufficient and the team had received minimal complaints. In the case of a complaint, no noise nuisance had been observed.

·         If there was 60 people in the rear area, noise would probably impact residents. The Council was trying to prevent public nuisance.

 

Mr Bryan Barnes, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The applicant had behaved the same way as previous operators. Residents did not consent to any extension of hours under any circumstances. The applicant was not trustworthy.

·         The applicant had not provided his number for residents.

·         The applicant had associates who had tried to intimidate him in the street.

·         There had been noise emanating from the rear area every other day. The Noise team had been called, but then either missed the noise or felt that it was not loud enough.

·         The applicant had stated time and again that they would comply with the conditions of their licence, but was aware that the regulations were not strong enough in order to have to meet the requirements.

·         Residents did not agree with the application and would not be intimidated.

·         Police never intervened regarding the issue. 

·         The applicant had provided a poor reason to extend operating hours. This would only benefit four or five patrons.

 

Mr Robert Bayley, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The applicant had stated that she had sent out letters and knocked on residents’ doors, but he had lived opposite the pub for over 25 years and spoke to at least 30 people and not one had mentioned that they had received a letter.

·         There was a local community who were residents and there was a community who were patrons. The emphasis had been placed on the business and not the residents in the surrounding area.

·         The acoustic report appeared to read with a neutral position and did not appear to have taken one side over another.

 

Mr Subrattee, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         Noise stopped when the Noise team visited the premises. If 23 complaints had been made, then it was likely that the premises suffered from noise nuisance. Residents did not make complaints for the sake of complaining. The complaints were valid complaints.

·         The rear area was the problem area and nothing had been done about it.

 

Sgt Malecka informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         Noise had stopped when the Noise team visited the premises. If 23 complaints had been made, then it was likely that the premises suffered from noise nuisance. Residents did not make complaints for the sake of complaining. They were valid complaints.

·         The prevention of crime and disorder was important and a written policy on zero tolerance on drugs would be helpful. Submission of such a policy would imply that the applicant was looking to uphold the licensing objectives and working with the other agencies.

·         A check had been made on reported crimes and the reported crimes within the vicinity had four reports and those crimes did not relate to any incidents inside or outside the premises. The reported crimes were on roads at a distance from the premises and were linked to possession of drugs. This was why the written policy was required.

 

 

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

 

·         The applicant had not agreed to the level of limit to the noise, but if the licence was granted, this would be done within a reasonable time period.

·         On the current licence, the roof had to be closed by 22:30. The applicant could continue to trade and offer licensable activity until 01:00. This was sufficient and there had been no noise substantiated complaints. The purpose of the roof being closed was to prevent public nuisance.

·         On 22 June 2024, a call had been received at 21:35, a call had been made to the premises staff at 21:45 and a visit was made at 21:55. Efforts were made to physically observe noise nuisance. No noise nuisance had been substantiated.

·         The acoustic report was comprehensive, but the prevention of public nuisance was still a priority and was at risk partly due to potentially intoxicated individuals spending time in the rear area. The noise related to music. 

 

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

 

·         He did not report the incident regarding the three individuals that had approached him on behalf of the applicant.

·         He had been threatened before from people that had occupied the premises in the past.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the Licensing Officer stated that the front area stopped being used at 21:30. The applicant had offered to accept that the rear external area be used until closing time, but that the roof be closed at 22:30. The premises would then revert to using electronic shisha on the inside of the premises and therefore did not need for the structure of the premises to be at least 50% open. Mr Sutherland stated that, on the current licence, it stated that the terminal hour for the use of the front area of the premises was 21:00, not 21:30. Proposed condition 5 should state that the rear external area be used until closing, but that the roof would be closed at 22:30 after which no shisha would be offered unless it was electric shisha with no tobacco content. There was no difference between the applicant’s position and Mr Bellringer’s position other than that the applicant wished for the roof to be closed at 00:00, rather than at 22:30.

 

In response to further questions, Mr Barnes, Mr Bayley and Mr Subrattee informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The time the area was supposed to be closed was at 22:30. The background music sounded much like disco music. 

·         The main issue was in relation to noise as this never had been dealt with. The applicant never consulted residents about development in the area.

·         From the time the premises closed, residents could be heard talking, laughing and shouting.

·         The rear area should close at 22:30 as a winding down period was needed.

·         SIA staff needed to be employed. 

·         The applicant was not observing the noise issues at the premises.

 

In response to further questions, Sgt Malecka informed the Sub-Committee that:

·         If a written policy in relation to the zero tolerance on drug drugs was submitted within seven days, then the Police would withdraw their objection.

 

In response to questions, the Licensing Officer stated that the use of a noise app to determine noise levels depended upon the interpretation of the noise on the device being used. The use of a noise limiter needed to be taken into consideration with the application for the playing of live music as this could not be limited by noise limiting equipment.

 

Mr Bellringer stated that someone performing live would normally bring their own equipment and this could then bypass the noise limiter. Mr Sutherland stated that additional sound generating equipment would be used on the premises and this would go through a sound limiter and if this was not possible, then it could not be used.

 

To summarise, Mr Sutherland stated that the conditions and hours were specifically tailored to the application. The majority of officer concerns had been addressed. There remained one issue in relation to the closure of the roof. The acoustic and supplemental report followed a degree of discussion which took place between the Noise team and the applicant. The report stated that there would be no noise heard from patrons in the premises even if they were shouting in the neighbours’ premises across the road. The summary of what the report said about music noise escaping (the only basis of complaints) had been addressed by the conditions and by the installation and setting of a noise limiter. The robust conditions would satisfy doubtful residents that the applicant would fulfil promises and could still be held to account through the review process. The Sub-Committee should grant the licence, allow the roof to close at 00:00 and make appropriate revisions to conditions 5 and 12 set out on page 152 of the agenda papers.

 

To summarise, Mr Bellringer stated that the Noise team had received 17 complaints. None of which had been verified for noise or for music. Tests had been made on the current proposed conditions through the 14 temporary events held at the premises and he felt that the newly proposed conditions would be sufficient. The roof should be closed at 22:30 for the prevention of public nuisance.

 

To summarise, Mr Barnes stated that when the premises underwent problems, they simply put a new name on the lease. The applicant did not carry out any promises made to residents. Complaints had been made and there had been occasions when a Noise officer had been present at the premises. It was the residents that had to deal with the issue and did not consent to the granting of the application. The use of the shisha area was not consulted with the residents. That premises should be demolished.

 

To summarise, Mr Bayley stated that he knew a lot of people in the area who he talked to regularly. If letters had been sent out trying to communicate with residents, he would have known about it. He was cynical about the applicant’s intentions regarding having a good relationship with residents and the community. The dispersal of patrons caused much of the problems. There was other noise such as people shouting or speaking, slamming car doors and other noise which would be difficult to deal with in practical terms. 

 

To summarise, Mr Subraati stated that he had been in licensed premises where they played background music, but background music was not what was playing in the premises. The staff did not know what background music was and the premises was not equipped for it. The premises only played one kind of music and this could be heard outside the premises. It was an issue that the applicant had not addressed, but still wanted to extend operating hours. He was not in favour of the application and if the premises could not operate properly during its current operating hours, then things would likely to be worse if the application was granted. The owners could not manage the premises and had never managed a licensed premises. They did not have any qualifications as managers.

 

To summarise, Sgt Malecka stated that the representations already made tallied in line with regard to the prevention of crime and disorder. This was predominantly important to her as she was grateful that the applicant and the DPS had proposed to produce a zero-tolerance policy on drugs in writing. In light of this provision, the Police had no further representations to oppose the proposed application.

 

The Sub-Committee would later withdraw for the consideration of the item.

 

RESOLVED

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a new premises licence for Smoky Limited at Smoky Lounge, 83 Mayes Road, London N22 6UP. 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 Guidance, the report pack (including the Additional Papers) and the applicant’s and objectors’ representation.

 

Having carefully considered the application and heard from all the parties, the Sub-Committee decided to GRANT the application for the hours and subject to the conditions below.

 

Hours granted:

Regulated Entertainment:

Live Music, Recorded Music & anything of a similar description

Sunday to Thursday: 1000 to 2330 hours

Friday and Saturday: 1000 to 0030 hours

 

Late Night Refreshment

Sunday to Thursday:           2300 to 2330 hours

Friday and Saturday:           2300 to 0030 hours

 

Supply of Alcohol

Sunday to Thursday:           1000 to 2330 hours

Friday and Saturday:           1000 to 0030 hours

 

Supply of alcohol ON the premises.

 

Hours open to Public

Sunday to Thursday:           0800 to 0000 hours

Friday and Saturday:           0800 to 0100 hours

 

 

REASONS

The premises were formerly operated as a public house for many years but over the last five years has been operated by various businesses. They are on the ground floor of the former public houses with residential above; with residential premises opposite and to one side, and Coburg Road to the other side. There are residential premises immediately the other side of Coburg Road and further down that road on the opposite side to the premises. The rear of the licensed area has a retractable roof and is used as a shisha lounge.

 

The rear of the licensed area has a retractable roof and is used as a shisha lounge.

 

There is an existing licence in place authorising licensable activities, but for shorter hours than now applied for. The Applicant has agreed with the Police to surrender that licence in the event that this licence is granted for longer hours than currently authorised. The existing licence includes a condition requiring the shisha area to be closed at 2230 each day.

 

Responsible Authorities

Objections were made by Responsible Authorities; both the Local Authority Noise Team and the Police. Each objected to the potential for excessive noise from the premises, affecting the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance, and the Police additionally were concerned that a zero tolerance policy towards drugs should be adopted, to further the objective of prevention of crime and disorder.

 

The Responsible Authorities were not able to agree hours with the applicant – in particular as to opening of the shisha roof - prior to the hearing; but both agreed a set of conditions that they could accept if their arguments on hours were accepted and, in the case of the police, the Applicant produced an acceptable written zero tolerance policy on drugs.

 

Resident objections

 

There were four objections by individual residents, and a petition and an individual representation in favour of the application.

 

The objectors focused on the risk of late night noise and disturbance and antisocial behaviour posed by the extended hours applied for. They pointed out that the premises are in a residential area and that the Applicant should accept that.

 

At the hearing

 

Prior to the hearing the panel had read the report pack including the application and representations made both in support of and against the application.

 

The Applicant was represented by a solicitor and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) under the current licence, who is proposed as the DPS under this application.

 

The papers before the panel included a comprehensive noise impact assessment prepared by experts instructed on behalf of the applicants. The conclusion of that report was that there would be no adverse impact from noise during the extended hours applied for.

 

The Responsible Authorities attended the hearing and gave evidence. While the Noise Team remained concerned about the potential for public nuisance from noise, they felt that provided the hours they proposed (which were a reduction on the hours sought by the Applicant, albeit an increase on current hours) were adhered to, and the roof over the shisha area closed by 2230, noise would not be excessive so as to cause public nuisance.

 

Three of the four objectors attended and spoke at the meeting. They again stressed that the area was residential and that that had to be taken into account in considering the application.

 

The Panel

 

The Panel carefully considered the representations made. Members were conscious that while there were clearly strong feelings locally about the application, the Applicant was entitled to succeed in its application if it were able to satisfy the Panel that the licensing objectives would be met.

 

While there were a number of complaints about noise from the premises, the Noise

Team had not been able to validate them.

 

The Panel came to the view that if the roof over the shisha were closed earlier than sought by the Applicant, in line with the recommendations of the Noise Team, the objective of avoiding public nuisance through noise would be met. It also acknowledged the Police concerns as to drugs, but accepted the Police view that submission of a satisfactory written zero tolerance policy on drugs – that was adhered to – would meet the licensing objective.

 

 

In the light of the submissions made by the Applicant’s representative the Panel came to the view that the conditions offered by the Applicant with the amendments set out below adequately upheld the licensing objectives of prevention of public nuisance and of disorder notwithstanding the concerns expressed in the objections.

 

The Panel therefore resolved to grant the application, but only for the reduced hours set out above, and subject to the revised Conditions set out at pp151-155 of the papers, amended as set out below.

 

AMENDMENTS TO AGREED CONDITIONS

2.         Amend to read:

 

“2. A member of staff trained in operating CCTV must be present at the venue

at all times that the venue is 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 and/or Local Authority can make an evidential copy of the data they require. Copies must be available within 24 hours to the Police and Local Authority on request.”

 

5. Amend to read:

 

“5. The rear external area may be used until closing, but the roof must be closed at 22:30 hours after which no Shisha may be offered or consumed unless it is e-shisha ie with no tobacco content. Signs must be displayed throughout the area advising that Shisha concludes at 2230 hours.

 

8. Amend to read:

 

“8. The Applicant shall provide the Police with a written zero-tolerance policy to the supply and use of drugs with 7 days of grant of the licence and shall ensure that that policy is adhered to at all times”

 

9. Amend to read:

 

“9. The premises will have a refusal book or electronic system to record all refusals of sales, this must be made available to the police and local authority officers upon request.

 

20. Amend to read:

 

“20. A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of an authorised officer of the Noise and Nuisance team, so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses. The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then be secured by key or password to the satisfaction of officers from the Noise and Nuisance Team and access shall only be by persons authorised by the Premises Licence holder or by the Local Authority or Police. The limiter shall not be altered without prior agreement with the Noise and Nuisance Team.

 

All sound generating equipment used on the premises including (for the avoidance of doubt) all amplification of live music shall be routed through the sound limiter device so as to limit such sounds to the level determined by the Noise and Nuisance Team. No such equipment may be used on the premises that is incapable of being so routed and limited.

 

26. Amend to read:

 

“26. The Applicant will provide a dedicated hotline which is monitored and responded to during opening hours for residents to raise any complaints with the premises/business owners. [The telephone number shall be advertised prominently within the premises and on its front door]

 

Additional Condition 30:

 

“30 The external area of the premises fronting onto Mayes Road shall be closed from 2100 hours”

 

Additional condition 31:

 

“31. There shall be 2 SIA trained security staff present on the premises at all times from 2100 hours until 30 minutes after closing”

 

Additional condition 32:

 

“32. No fireworks will be launched or set off on or from the premises at any time.”

 

 

At 8:57pm, the Sub-Committee adjourned for a short break and reconvened at 9:08pm.