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 was for new premises licence.

·         The applicant had agreed to some reduced timings with the Noise team.

·         Regulated entertainment in the form of live music would be Monday to Friday 07:00 to 21:30 and until 22:30 on Saturday and Sunday.

·         There were non-standard timings which had been significantly reduced from what was being requested originally.

·         Page 159 of the agenda papers showed the times for recorded music, Monday to Friday 08:00 – 22:00, Saturday to Sunday 08:00 until 22:00.

·         The sale of alcohol would be from Monday to Friday 11:00 to 21:30 and Saturday to Sunday 11:00 to 22:30. The supply of alcohol would be on the premises.

·         The hours open to the public would be Monday to Friday 08:00 to 22:00 and until 23:00 on Saturday and Sunday.

·         There were seasonal variations stipulated.

·         The premises was situated at the rear of Wood Green Shopping Mall and had its own entrance from Mayes Road. There were residential properties directly beside it and also facing the property.

·         Paragraph 3.2 of the Licensing officer’s report had been agreed by the applicant.

·         Objections had been received by residents, the Noise team’s and the Police, though the Police had since withdrawn their representation.

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

The applicant’s representative, Mr Oisin Daly, informed the Sub-Committee that:  

 

·         The section 182 guidance, specifically 9.37, 9.38 and 9.12 were worth considering. As a matter of practice, the Sub-Committee should consider steps appropriate to promote the licensing objectives that gave rise to the specific representation to avoid straying into disputed areas.

·         The initial application was submitted and had subsequently been amended by the applicant. The applicant themselves acted on their own behalf took measures into play where they agreed with the Police and agreed with the Noise team. There had been a significant reduction in hours.

·         The application was primarily to allow the sale of alcohol as an activity that was ancillary to the premises as a restaurant.

·         The premises was a café - a restaurant - that would sell alcohol. It was not going to be a bar, a nightclub or open particularly late.

·         The operating hours were within the policy hours and significant conditions had been agreed with both the Police and the Noise team. Neither party were present at this hearing and their concerns had been appeased and they had agreed conditions proposed.

·         In relation to the representations received, these may have been submitted prior to the agreements being made.

·         He hoped the Sub-Committee would grant the application as it had been amended through the agreements with the Police and the Noise team.

·         In relation to the street drinking issue, the premises would sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. The premises only had a limited number of tables. The sales would not encourage street drinking.

·         In relation to the operating hours, these had been reduced. 

·         In relation to the effect of alcohol, this did not have an effect but it was significantly mitigated when it was ancillary to the sale of food.

·         The applicant had agreed to implement soundproofing measures and mitigate noise as much as possible. The applicant was willing to implement measures to prevent any noise nuisance escaping from the premises and cause a disturbance to neighbours.

·         Some representations revolved around other things going on in the area which were not particularly relevant to the licensing objectives.

·         Regarding the question of late-night noise, the reduction of hours should resolve this issue. This included the non-standard timings initially applied for.

·         As for concerns regarding antisocial behaviour, the premises had not opened yet had not traded and could not be attributable to any of the antisocial behaviour in the area.

·         The premises was not a late-night operation. It was a café / restaurant that would serve alcohol ancillary to food.

·         In relation to impact on families and vulnerable residents, the premises would not be a place where young people or children would likely try and frequent.

·         A young person seeking to buy alcohol would not likely do so in a cafe restaurant where food would have to be brought.

·         Premises staff had been provided with a full training pack.

·         The applicant had previously held a business in Palmers Green, London where he had been working with his business partner and was seeking to expand his operations.

·         The applicant had held a personal licence for a number of years and had experience within the industry.

 

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

·         The full training pack could be provided to officers and was in English and Albanian to make sure that the training itself was thorough. It was a licensed training manual that was provided to the staff. The staff had read through it and carried out a quiz based on the manual. It was not a pass or fail system, but would identify any learning opportunities for staff. The staff member would then confirm that they had been trained, at which point they would be authorised to sell alcohol by the designated premises supervisor. The training manuals could be provided to licensing officers if necessary. The training would be repeated every six months.

·         The proposed conditions had been agreed by the Police.

·         Having spoken to a number of local residents, they were quite keen for the premises to be open as it would be a relaxed environment where they can go and drink coffee, read a newspaper and work. Many premises like this were open and part of the intention of the Licensing Act was to have this type of cafe culture.

·         His background was in Police Licensing and local authority licensing. He used to run pubs for a big chain.

·         The risk of nuisance was far lower at the premises.

·         He was a local resident and had made representations against other licensing applications in the past so he appreciated residents’ concerns.

·         The applicant was happy to have a direct number that could be displayed on the premises if there were any concerns Any complaints would be recorded within an incident book. An email address could also be provided.

·         The applicant did not want his premises to be conflated with issues that may be generated from other premises.

·         There were no plans to film music videos at the premises. 

·         Every premises licence had a set of conditions that needed to be adhered to otherwise it was an offence which could result in being taken to court or be fined. The licence could also be reviewed. Any notification of a breach of licence received by the Licensing Authority would need to be investigated. The applicant had management experience and could have made a few more details freely available on the premises and perhaps reduced the non-standard operating hours.

·         The applicant’s representative would be on hand to deliver training and assisting with translating any documents.

 

In response to questions, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that on Fridays, the hours open to the public would be Monday to Friday 08:00 to 22:00 and 08:00 to 23:00 on Saturday and Sunday.  Licensable activities would cease at 22:30 on Saturday for the sale of alcohol.The supply of alcohol would cease at 21:30 on Fridays and the premises would close at 22:00.

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

·         If the premises caused nuisance or continued nuisance then it would be for the Environmental Health department to determine whether that nuisance was a statutory nuisance and they would be able to take action.

·         It had been agreed that no more than four persons would be allowed to occupy the external area at any one time. No loudspeakers would be placed outside the premises. There would not be a source of music outside and not many people standing out at the front area.

·         The applicant may apply for a tables and chairs licence, but this would be limited. The specific condition the Police requested was no more than four persons standing outside smoking or congregating during live entertainment nights. This condition was agreed. There was not a large frontage to the premises.

·         There would be no outside dining. The Sub-Committee would be asked if it was minded to grant the application, then not to over-restrict the conditions on the licence. The coronavirus crisis had demonstrated that businesses may be put into situations where it became difficult to use a premises licence.

·         If the applicant saw it fit to apply for a pavement licence, then this would be done and would be subject to a separate consultation that would allow representations from local residents at a later time.

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

Councillor Emine Ibrahim informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         Her objection was with regard to noise and public disturbance. The proposed live music and the recorded music schedule was excessive with music permitted as late at 01:30 on New Year's Eve, 00:00 on Christmas Eve and 00:30 on public holidays.

·         There was a building opposite the premises affected. There was a history of antisocial behaviour and the community had already faced significant issues with antisocial behaviour on the road which required multiple Police intervention and support from Haringey antisocial behaviour team and the local MP as well as local councillors.

·         Recently there was a potential for increased crime and disruption. The sale of alcohol until 03:00 on New Year's Eve, 02:00 for special events and 00:30 on public holidays would significantly increase the risk of alcohol-related disorder. The late-night operations often attracted noise, rowdiness and disturbances negatively affecting the safety and security of residents.

·         There would be a huge impact on families and vulnerable residents in the building opposite the premises including young children, the elderly, individuals with health conditions who required a peaceful living environment, late-night music and potential outdoor gatherings or severely disrupt sleep patterns leading to undue stress and discomfort.

 

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

 

·         He lived near the premises and the neighbourhood would be subject to music noise and loitering customers.

·         Patrons would probably park their car on the nearby roads likely loitering, drinking and speaking with loud voices.

·         There now appeared to be approximately six musical events in close vicinity of the area. There were several licensed premises in the area including a music studio, a brewery and there were too many musical establishments in close vicinity of the area where residents lived.

·         According to the applicant, music would be amplified during special events. It was not clear what was meant by this.

·         The premises attracted a different type of clientele.

·         The Sub-Committee had a duty to listen to residents. 

 

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

 

·         The area was a residential area. This was an important point as people lived and worked in the area. People also had children in their homes and the application would have an impact on people generally. Not enough consideration had been being given to this.

·         People came first before any business. People who lived in the area were familiar with what happened in it. Businesses often fluctuated in occupying the area.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the Legal advisor to the Sub-Committee stated that the Sub-Committee was bound by law to make its decisions on the basis of a series of licensing objectives. One of those objectives was to prevent public nuisance and to prevent crime and disorder. These objectives were more prominent in a residential area than a commercial area, but this did not mean that the Sub-Committee must refuse applications in residential areas where the Sub-Committee was satisfied that licensing objectives would be upheld.

 

Mr Subrattee further informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The parameters for granting a premises licence were too narrow. Applicants would always have an advantage.

·         The Sub-Committee had a duty as public servants and should listen to residents.

 

Ms Nabutebi, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The late opening hours at the weekend, especially on a Sunday was problematic as residents had to go back to work on Monday and children had to go to school on Monday. It was not clear why there would be extended hours at the weekend, especially on the Sunday. This needed to be reconsidered and looked at closely.

·         In relation to mitigating noise, it was unclear with regard to live band or live music, what mitigations were going to be put in place. Only four people were allowed outside of the premises so it would not be clear if they would be ushered away by security.

 

Ms Jahan Shahiri, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         A residential building was very close to the premises. In previous years, any businesses had caused disturbance to the residents The building had a number of families with small children, including vulnerable residents.

·         The premises being open until late would disturb those who had to be up at 05:00 or 06:00. This would affect residents on a day-to-day basis and was not something that residents could put aside.

·         Her previous experience of a business opening at the premises, regardless of any measures apparently put into place, was that even when it was one or two people making noise, it would escalate quickly. The Police and the Council’s Noise team had to be called.

·         A small group of people could easily have a negative impact on residents.

·         It was not clear how such a disturbance would be handled by the business.

 

Ms Shelley Amos, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The local community had been traumatised due to many different issues such as antisocial behaviour.

·         The previous business owners had issues with the premises and the community had recently overcome something traumatic.

·         It was disheartening that there could be a reiteration of conflict regarding the same premises again.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the Licensing Officer stated that the applicant had agreed with the Noise team and the Police that on Christmas Eve, alcohol would be served until 23:30, until 00:00 on New Year's Eve. On those occasions, the premises would close half an hour later. On public holidays such as Easter Monday and bank holidays, alcohol may be served until 00:00.A temporary event notice could be submitted for any special events to cover for any additional hours. Live music would be playable until 21:30 Monday to Friday and 22:30 on a Saturday and Sunday. Recorded music would be playable up until 22:00 Monday to Friday and until 23:00 on a Saturday and Sunday. These times fell into what was permitted under the Live Music Act and the deregulation of regulated entertainment.A licensed premises would be able to benefit from being able to offer regulated entertainment such as live music or recorded music on the premises between the hours of 08:00 to 23:00 without it needing to be specified on the licence. This meant that the Sub-Committee at this stage would be unable to add any conditions for the playing of that music during that time period.

 

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

 

·         It was unclear why a restaurant would need to run until 23:00. The premises should close at 22:30.

 

To summarise, Mr Daly stated that in accordance with section 9.38 of the 182 guidance, in determining the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives, in the overall interests of the local community, the Licensing Authority must give appropriate weight to the steps that were appropriate to promoting the licensing objectives with all the conditions that had been offered and agreed with the Noise team and the Police, the representations themselves that had been submitted, the guidance itself and the statement of licensing policy. The guidance referred that all concerns should be directed to those that had been submitted by the objectors and steps that were appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. As an immigrant to the country about 20 years ago and worked in the licensing industry, it was important to be careful to not make assumptions based on opinions of nationality. This was an application for a premises within the community from an individual who wished to exist, cooperate and integrate within the community. The response to the objectors outlined that the applicant was both a parent and a long-standing member of the community. Creating a safe family-friendly environment was not just a business objective, but a deeply personal commitment. He appreciated concerns from local residents and the individual had expressed their willingness to work within the local community and not cause an issue. The Sub-Committee should grant the licence.

 

To summarise, Councillor Ibrahim stated that the background of the applicant was not relevant.

 

 

To summarise, Mr Barnes stated that he had not had a positive experience with those who had run the premises in the past. If the operator had good intentions, then he would be supported by the community. However, it was important to maintain manners and courtesy to residents and to respect each other's opinions. He had seen licensed premises which were very well run. Noise from amplified music on special events was not acceptable. The loitering of patrons may visit with high performance cars and the Council had a duty of care. There were residents that lived near the premises that had not attended this meeting and would have liked to. Any noise being produced would be heard as there was not any soundproofing. 

 

To summarise, Mr Niman Hoxha, the applicant, stated that he would like to follow the proper regulations. He had been part of the community for 29 years. He had a family business and had family tables at his premises. He did not need live music, only background music. He was not selling alcohol and making trouble. Only those who brought a meal could get a glass of wine or beer.

To summarise, Mr Subrattee stated that the applicant was running a business and he hoped the system was not tested in such a way where there was going to be a lot of complaints. Wood Green had a lot of restaurants already. Many of them were well run. It was not clear how the premises was going to run. 

To summarise, Ms Namutebe stated that the procedure for consulting residents needed to be reconsidered because residents were directly impacted by such licence applications.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the Legal advisor to the Sub-Committee stated that the procedure for licensing applications had been laid down in law which was made in Parliament.  

 

To summarise, Ms Shahiri stated that the residents’ concerns should be taken into consideration as it was residents’ lives which had been affected and had been affected many times before. The applicant had heard residents’ concerns so she hoped issues would be addressed. Residents were anxious and had been affected differently. Patrons attracted to the area as a result of the premises operations had to be dealt with by residents.

 

To summarise, Ms Amos stated that she was glad that the applicant was present at the meeting to hear residents. The applicant had not lived on the street and did not understand what residents had to endure over the years and the impact the premises had.

 

Adjournment and Decision

 

At 10:16pm, 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 grant the application subject to conditions and amendments.

 

RESOLVED: To grant the application subject to conditions and amendments.      

 

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a new premises licence for Te Zgara Limited at Unit 70-72 The Mall, Mayes Road, London N22 6YQ. 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’ representations.

 

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

Sunday to Thursday: 1900 to 2130 hours

Friday and Saturday: 1900 to 2230 hours

 

 

Non-standard timings:

 

Christmas Eve:                                 19:00 to 23:30 hours

 

New Year’s Eve and the

evening before any

other Public Holiday:                       19:00 to 00:00 hours

 

 

Recorded Music

Sunday to Thursday:                       0800 to 2200 hours

Friday and Saturday:                       0800 to 2300 hours

 

 

 

 

Supply of Alcohol

Sunday to Thursday:           1100 to 2130 hours

Friday and Saturday:           1100 to 2230 hours

 

 

Non-standard timings:

 

Christmas Eve:                     1100 to 2330 hours

 

 

New Year’s Eve and the

evening before any

other Public Holiday:           1100 to 0000 hours

 

 

 

Supply of alcohol ON the premises.

 

Hours open to Public

Sunday to Thursday:           0800 to 2200 hours

 

Friday and Saturday:           0800 to 2300 hours

 

 

Seasonal Variations:

During Christmas, New Year’s and Easter open hours may be adjusted to 1000 to 0000

 

Non-standard timings:

Christmas, New Year, and Easter:  1000 to 0000

On Public Holidays:             Until 0030

                       

 

REASONS

These ground floor premises are situated to the rear of Wood Green Shopping Mall with its own entrance from Mayes Road. There are residential premises immediately opposite.

 

The Applicant states that the premises will operate as a restaurant.

 

Responsible Authorities

 

 

Objections were made by Responsible Authorities; both the Local Authority Noise Team and the Police. Each however withdrew their objection on the Applicant agreeing their proposals as to hours and conditions.

 

Resident objections

 

There were three objections by individual residents and a petition (which one individual also signed).

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. One individual was concerned at the prospect of normalisation for children (there being various educational establishments in the area) of the consequences of the drinking of alcohol.

 

At the hearing

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

 

The Applicant was represented by Oisin Daly of Absolute Licensing Solutions and by the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) proposed under this application. Mr Daly stressed that what was proposed was a family restaurant, not a pub, bar or nightclub.

 

Five individual objectors attended and spoke at the meeting and Cllr Ibrahim spoke to the petition. The objectors again stressed that the area was residential and that that had to be taken into account in considering the application. There had been previous problems at the premises including shooting music videos outside the premises late in the evening; the Applicant gave an assurance that that was not the intention; nor was it his intention to run a nightclub, as another objector characterised the proposals.

 

The Panel

 

The Panel carefully considered the representations made. Members were conscious that while the objectors clearly felt strongly about the application, for what is effectivelya residential area, the Applicant was entitled to succeed if it were able to satisfy the Panel that the licensing objectives would be met.

 

The Panel noted that the application was for a restaurant, so there would be no associated street drinking, and external disturbance would be minimal. It did however feel that the residential context required appropriate Conditions to be applied.

 

The Panel came to the view that if the licence was granted for the hours and under the conditions agreed by the Responsible Authorities with the Applicant, the objectives of avoiding public nuisance through noise would be met.

 

The Panel does not take the view that the consumption of alcohol inevitably leads to an increase in alcohol created crime, and disorder, putting at risk public safety, creating public nuisance and threatening children with harm. If properly controlled by the application of appropriate conditions and restriction to appropriate times, these consequences can be prevented.

 

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 in the application, together with additional conditions agreed by the Responsible Authorities at pp178-180, 182-183 and 187-189, with two additions, upheld each of the licensing objectives notwithstanding the concerns expressed in the objections.

 

Those two additions related to the frequency of refresher training; during the hearing the Applicant indicated that the refresher training mentioned in the proposed conditions would be provided every 6 months, and the panel felt that this should be incorporated in the Conditions.

 

The Panel also felt that a telephone number should be provided so that any concerns from residents could be communicated direct.

 

The proposed additional conditions in these respects appear below.

 

The Panel noted that the hours as agreed allowed for late opening on Sundays, the night before the start of the working week, but not Fridays, the night before the weekend; and adjusted the hours to the more normal pattern, of later opening on Friday and Saturday nights.

 

The Panel therefore resolved to grant the application, with he hours set out above,

and otherwise subject to the Conditions as set out above.

 

 

Additional conditions

 

1. All refresher training provided for in these conditions shall be provided at

intervals of no more than 6 months.

 

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