Agenda item

To consider an application for a variation of a premises licence.

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

 

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

 

·         This was an application for the variation of an existing premises licence.

·         The application sought to extend the times for alcohol sales. 

·         A copy of the application could be found at appendix 1 and was seeking a sale of alcohol 07:00 to 02:00 Monday to Sunday for consumption off the premises.

·         During the consultation period, representations had been received from the Noise and Nuisance officer, from Police and from residents. 

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

Mr Vishal Patel, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         The licence holder had taken over the small family-run post office and convenience store in July 2025 and had operated responsibly with no licensing complaints or incident.

·         He fully respected considerations from the Noise team, Police, residents and any ward councillors regarding drinking, antisocial behaviour, nuisance and the Clear, Hold, Build initiative. He supported these efforts and aimed to contribute positively.

·         As per the Licensing Act and the Council’s policy, decisions should be open-minded and based on the specific evidence presented regarding the premises and not general assumptions.

·         He hoped the Sub-Committee approached the hearing fairly.

·         None of the representation cited problems caused by the premises. There had been no crime, no noise logs, disorder or any incidents under the applicant’s management.

·         The concerns raised were area wide and not specific to the well-managed business.

·         The application had strong measures for the licensing objective with 24 hour by CCTV with 35 days retention, trained staff, a strict Challenge 25 policy, refusal to sell to intoxicated customers, well managed logs, external checks to prevent loitering, good lighting, no audible noise outside the premises.

·         This had worked flawlessly in the last six months with zero issues.

·         The applicant was happy to add conditions, no single sales of alcoholic drinks, enhanced dispersal to support the whole phase.

·         As a small business, the applicant needed extended hours to serve shift workers, late commuters and stadium visitors offering safe supervised access over unregulated sources.

·         Nearby premises had similar permissions. Without this, it was hard to compete, sustain jobs and keep the high street vibrant.

·         If the full seven days to 02:00 was too much, perhaps due to the weekends, the applicant was happy to accept amendments like limiting the terminal hour of 02:00 to Fridays and Saturday nights initially. This would provide meaningful support while monitoring progress.

·         The applicant preferred all days, but was flexible and committed to safe operations. Granting this or with modifications aligned with area improvements and would help the ‘Build’ phase (of Clear, Hold, Build) by supporting a responsible small business.

·         He would ask the Sub-Committee to grant the variation as sought or with proportionate conditions including a phased approach to Friday and Saturday to give the small business the support it needed while upholding the objectives.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the Sub-Committee decided to extend the meeting past 10:00pm in order for the meeting to be concluded. 

 

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

 

·         The premises was within very close walking distance to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium nearby and therefore the business would benefit from the increased footfall that would happen on event days at the stadium.

·         The business could have taken the option of submitting a temporary event notice (TEN) 10 clear working days before a proposed event at the stadium and ask for the ability to extend alcohol sales for a longer period. The previous licence holder had remained on the licence as the DPS and was aware of TENs and the requirements around these. However, a variation was sought for a terminal hour of 02:00 each day. There was nothing in the application about event days.

·         His preference would be for the premises to open until 02:00 on event days (at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium) only. The only reason the application had been made was because continually submitting TENs with a small business would be more difficult than simply having a licence. Any resident or passer-by would not reference the premises as being open as late as 00:00. The premises was a family run business and if there were issues in the area, the premises shutter would be brought down and closed to make it safer for staff.

·         The application was about continuing to run the business during evening when events were being held. If there was any provision in the Council where it was possible to have a licence for event days then he would be happy to apply for that.

·         It was not convenient to apply for a TEN every single time there was an event.

·         Extension of operating hours on Friday and Saturday alone should be enough for the applicant. Events at the stadium did not last particularly long on Sundays. 

 

 

The Licensing Officer stated that events being held in the area would commonly cease by 23:00. 

 

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

 

·         Some of the football matches finished at 22:00 and he wanted to operate when the business would be busier.

 

The Licensing Officer stated that there were conditions that the Police would want to put in place around alcohol sales times in relation to football matches being played in the area. Some matches had a concerted effort to deter and reduce alcohol sales.

 

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

 

·         The Sub-Committee could consider Fridays and Saturdays as a starting point. He understood the restrictions from the Police and the premises would be able to comply with regulations. The premises did not have any issues operating and another premises in the area had permission to sell alcohol for 24 hours. If the application was granted so that the premises could operate until 02:00 for Friday and Saturday, the applicant would be happy to accept it. 

·         If residents reported any issues, he would be happy to amend the operating hours. The applicant wanted to continue serving the community including as a post office.

·         The events he referred to were events being held at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

·         There was a premises nearby which operated during event days and nights and operated very late. The applicant did not wish to lose the patrons in the area and the applicant trying to make sure that patrons would attend his premises and use the services offered. 

·         Door security staff was already available and usually in place if a large crowd was in the area to make sure that the premises was safe and secure.

·         The doors were sound proof so noise did not escape. If people were seen to be standing outside, a staff member would ask them to leave.

·         Loitering and drinking outside was happening outside of the premises. It was not possible to control what happened down the street and it was something that the Police would be aware of.

·         He would like to start settling up the business and see whether it could grow and improve or be able to provide services to patrons late in the night.

·         He wanted the premises to operate during the day and to continue doing so in the evenings as well. The business was seeing patrons going to other areas further down the road where alcohol was sold. The applicant wanted to keep the patrons as customers at the premises as if they attended during the day, then they could also visit the premises during evening. If the patron attended another premises, then they often did not return even during the daytime. To have extended hours during Fridays and Saturdays would be beneficial, but the main target was to be able to operate during event days. Many football matches often went into extra time or were subject to delay. This was when the events finished late into the night. Having access to these patrons would allow the business to be viable and keep the staff on board. 

·         The premises was a big property; the space on one side was for the post office, and the other side would be used for alcohol and the central area would be used for groceries. He lived in a flat above the high street above the business and understood what happened if any noise was made. This was why staff were serious about how it was going to run the business and would not wish to operate a licence that would cause any trouble.

·         He would make sure the premises complied with regulation and did not create issues for the residents.

·         The premises was like a big box with a post office counter on the right-hand side with greeting cards at the front of the area. The middle area had a few racks with different type of foods. There was a freezer with frozen food and there was a big rack where alcohol was sold on the left-hand side. There were two shop front with lots of storage space. The space was not being used at present. The space would be used to display more product. 

·         There would not be any seating space. The additional area would be used for the groceries as there already was enough space for alcohol.

·         The premises could be described as a Tesco with a Post Office.

·         The White Hart was a premises in the area that had a 24-hour licence. 

·         The front of the premises where the business was located was something that had to be considered from a licensing point of view.

·         He was aware of what happened in the street. If the premises closed at 23:30, any sales after this point would not be sold by the premises. He also did not have any control over people bringing alcohol from their homes.  Antisocial behaviour in the area had been decreasing.

·         No attempts had been made to open the premises using a TEN. The applicant had operated a fried chicken shop in the past and had not realised that acquiring a licence would come with challenges. However, being a good business person, he wished to explore potential growth as much as possible.

·         He was happy to submit temporary event notices.

·         After an event had finished, there were patrons who would like to have alcohol or there were people who worked during late hours. This was why the applicant wanted to operate later on Fridays and Saturdays or the event days. A local event also meant that patrons may be watching the event somewhere in London and heading back home later and this was where customers could be found and be served before they went home. 

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

Ms Selina Emmanuel informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         Her concerns involved the prevention of crime and the prevention of guess more public nuisance. There were also issues regarding existing antisocial behaviour in the area.

·         The premises opening for longer hours would exacerbate the issues in the area.

·         There were issues with public drinking and loitering in groups outside the premises.

·         There were also issues with urinating and vomiting on the street.

·         The issues occurred late at night. There were people that could be found loitering up to 18:00.

·         The loitering prevented residents in the area from accessing a walkway in the area. There were no cameras in the area.

·         Residents had raised concerns repeatedly regarding antisocial behaviour leading to a community crime fighting event that was held by in November 2025.

·         The application was unclear because originally the applicant wished to extend operating hours until 02:00, but it appeared that now the applicant wished only to operate until 02:00 on event days.

·         She would inform her children not to use the walkway. 

·         People would come into the area and vomit including on event days.

·         People urinated in the area as well.

·         People loitered outside the premises.

·         Police had been called in the past to tend to issues and there had been knife crime issues including two stabbings.

·         The applicant stating that they would put down the shutters in case of issues were thinking of their own safety not the safety of residents.

 

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

 

·         The people loitering were probably are selling drugs as well as drinking.

·         She had seen up to 20 people loitering at times.

·         There were vulnerable people that lived around that area.

 

Councillor John Bevan informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         All documentation and representations made against the premises was true and was not exaggerated.

·         The area was a problematic area.   

·         There was sheltered housing behind the premises – an older people's sheltered housing.

·         The Police in the past had visited the premises to talk to retailers selling alcohol about what was going on in the area. They had visited the premises as well.

·         He walked around the area late at night particularly when there was an event at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

·         There were never any event attendees at night. By 00:00 or earlier, the area would be completely cleared. This included the recent boxing events.

 

 

In response to questions, Councillor John Bevan informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·         He objected to the application.

 

 

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

 

·         It was not clear what the application was asking for and it looked like a request for a variation application.

·         When a representation was made about the issues of antisocial behaviour, he then received emails from the applicant to say that the application was only for a matchdays.

·         The applicant was informed about the use of temporary event notices.   

·         There were issues in the area regarding people drinking and people loitering in the street. A premises staying open for longer hours would exacerbate the issue.

·         The premises could be subject to a proof of concept via the use of temporary event notices.

 

 

PC Novak and PC Costache informed the Sub-Committee that: 

 

·         PC Novak had been a police sergeant for a number of years and had worked on many of the events that took place at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and he actively discouraged the sale of alcohol during events and any alcohol consumption on the street.

·         Police robustly enforced using the public space protection order to confiscate any open cans or bottles of alcohol.

·         The Police operated a Clear, Hold, Build framework in the area and had around a 23% reduction in crime.

·         In the immediate vicinity of the premises, there had been a very stubborn antisocial behaviour problem linked to alcohol and drugs. This had been acutely felt by the community.

·         Many meetings had been held and the issue was raised with MP David Lammy (regarding antisocial behaviour in the area)

·         The Police also recently set the ward panel meeting a pledge to the community to reduce violence with injury offences.

·         There was a direct link between the sale of alcohol and violence with injury offences.

·         The application would be contrary to policing plan and the pledges made to the community.

·         The concern was primarily related to the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

·         The premises was located in close proximity of the Clear, Hold, Build footpath and an area that continued to experience significant levels of antisocial behaviour, particularly in the evenings.

·         There were reports of public drinking, noise groups gathering late in the night, violence and drugs.

·         Extending operating hours would likely increase footfall at times when the issues were more prevalent and when police resources were at their lowest.

·         Whilst they appreciate the applicant engagement and willingness to work with Police, the measures proposed did not sufficiently mitigate the risk identified.

·         The Police did not support the application and would advise that if the applicant wished to open later for a specific event or occasion, they may wish to give a temporary event notice instead.   

·         When the applicant stated that other premises in the area had longer hours, it was worth noting that each premises licence was considered on its own merits based on specific locations, operating style and the evidence available at the time of the application.

·         Some of the premises had been granted their hours under different circumstances.

·         Police concern was not about fairness between the premises in the area but about the current and ongoing risk associated with the specific location particularly antisocial behaviour.

 

 

In response to questions, PC Novak and PC Costache informed the Sub-Committee that: 

 

 

·         In relation to other licensed premises in the area, the licences were granted when the conditions in terms of antisocial behaviour were different.   

 

 

In response to a question, the Licensing Officer stated that one of the licenced premises was ones that applied in 2005 to have extended hours and make use of new Licensing Act at the time. The Sub-Committee was still able to consider the cumulative impact taking place in a location when determining a new application or a variation that seeking extended times for alcohol sales. Other new premises had opened in the area, but had been food-led premises that served alcohol. There had not been any off-licences or other such premises in that time. The Sub-Committee was able to consider if granting another premises to sell alcohol for extended hours would contribute to improving the area or be a negative impact on the area.

 

To summarise, Mr Patel stated that the business was flexible and he did understand    that each application was assessed on its own merits. The objections were more based on assumptions, rather than fact and issues needed to be looked at by the right authorities. The first shop on the road had a licence to sell alcohol. His premises was five or six shops down the road. The premises had not had any issues. There had not been any concern raised for his premises. He would ask the Sub-Committee to examine the premises and the proposal. The business wanted to make sure that it survived. If the premises was having issues showed that the staff did not have control of the area and was not ready to improve. Late night businesses had a positive impact to residents. If someone was moving into the area, it provided assurance that the high street was progressing and helped attract residents to the area rather than scaring them away.  The premises was business led by business people who wanted to work where the business could make money and survive on the high street. He would ask support from the authorities so that the premises could do business.  He was always ready to support the Council or the authorities if they wanted an issue addressed. He was happy to change operating hours in future if required. If the application was granted to allow operating extended hours on Fridays and Saturdays, he was happy to have restrictions on the licence. He was also happy to have some conditions on the licence. He was ready to work with the residents and happy not to sell single cans of alcohol.

 

To summarise, Ms Emanuel stated that due to the issues in the area, it had become a priority for the Police, the Council and the residents to make the area a safer community for the residents in the area.   

 

To summarise, Councillor Bevan stated that he agreed with everything that had been said which was all true regarding the opposition to the application.

 

To summarise, Mr Bellinger stated that he did not support the application.

 

To summarise, PC Novak stated that the applicant should consider how the application benefited the community. The sale of alcohol late at night had a negative impact on the community.  The applicant could consider giving temporary event notices. He would not be able to support the application.   

 

 

 

Adjournment and Decision

 

At 11:30pm, 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 refuse the application.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

The Licensing Sub Committee carefully considered the application for a variation of a Premises Licence at: Tottenham, Post Office, 824-828 High Road, Tottenham, London, N17 0EZ (NORTHUMBERLAND PARK

 

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, Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Human Rights Act and the applicant’s and objector’s representations. Having considered the application and heard from all the parties, the Committee decided to REFUSE the application.

 

REASONS: The Committee gave serious consideration to the submissions by the Applicant and to the concerns raised by the objectors- particularly the Police. The premises is located in a terrace of shops with residential above.

 

The premises is situated in an area that is currently under special measures due to the level of anti- social behaviour taking place, including street drinking and drug taking. The measures are led by the Police under Clear, Hold, Build. The local operation is focusing in and around Northumberland Park and the aim is to return it to a location which residents, businesses and visitors can enjoy. The Police representative advised that there is a direct link between the sale of alcohol and violence.

 

It was noted that the Applicant stated that the reason for their application was not to sell alcohol from 7am until 2am every day. They advised that it was simply to extend the licence to 2am when there was a local event with a post 11pm finish to avoid having to apply for individual Temporary Event Notice (TEMS licence) each time. However it was noted that the Applicants had not tested out how onerous/commercially viable obtaining a TEMS licence would be despite the Committee being advised that there were only two events that finished past 11pm in 2025.

 

The Committee can see no justification as to the necessity for a variation to the licence as opposed to simply obtaining a TEMS licence as and when necessary. In addition they are permitted to consider the cumulative impact in an area that is blighted with street drinking, and anti-social behaviour. The Committee believes that to extend the licence to 2am would have a detrimental impact on the local community. In light of the above, it was deemed that a refusal of the application balanced the interests of the applicants, the local 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.