Agenda and draft minutes

Members AGREED that Cllr Boztas would Chair the Churchfields application.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Cllr Sinan Boztas would be unable to attend the hearing for the +355 Coffee Bar & Lounge application, and so would be substituted by Cllr Mahym Bedekova, who would Chair this item.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relating to items on the agenda.

Cllr Sabri Ozaydin declared that he was a member of the Alevi faith, but not a member of the British Alevi Federation. It would be declared when the decision was being conveyed that Cllr Ozaydin was also a consultant to one of the vendors who would be at the 2024 British Alevi Federation summer festival. Cllr Ozaydin would abstain from the decision on the Churchfields Recreation Ground application.

Application for Variation of a Premises Licence – British Alevi Federation

1.    The introduction by Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.    The sub-committee were to consider a variation application for the British Alevi Federation at Churchfields Recreation Ground, Great Cambridge Road, London, N9 9LE.

b.    There was no DPS, as the existing licence did not permit the sale of alcohol and the variation application did not seek to add this activity.

c.     The variation sought to add outdoor live and recorded music, performance of dance and anything of a similar description between 1pm and 7pm for a Saturday and Sunday two-day event annually. The opening hours sought for this two-day event were between 10am and 10pm.

d.    The Alevi had held outdoor events previously in the summer months of recent years, these events were reported to have caused noise nuisances and some unlicensed activity had been witnessed by council officers, specifically in the summer of 2022.

e.    A new licence application for the premises was submitted in December 2023, which originally sought outdoor events to be included as part of the same licence, but following mediation with the Licensing Authority, the outdoor activities were removed from that application. That new application went to a hearing in February 2024, in light of outstanding representations from the Licensing Authority and local residents. The application was granted with full hours and modified conditions and was in regards to the event hall.

f.      This variation application was submitted in April and had attracted objecting representations from the council’s traffic and transport team, the Licensing Authority, the Police and six local residents. One ward councillor had submitted a representation in support of the application.

g.    Through the representations, there was a pattern that the Alevi needed to include more details in the event management plan, including a traffic management plan.

h.    The Alevi had provided a response which was available in the main and supplementary reports. However, some outstanding concerns remained, therefore the representations from all parties remained in place.

i.      Conditions had been sought by the Licensing Authority, as per Annex 10, but the Alevi had not indicated agreement to them.

j.      The committee could if minded to impose additional conditions not yet mentioned in any representation.

k.     The Alevi were required to submit an amended plan to reflect the true layout of the licence area, and include the 200 car parking spaces on site as mentioned by the Alevi in recent meetings. The plan of the licensed area was a legal requirement and formed part of the licence authorisation, so must be accurate for the licence to be used. Mr Gunduz circulated an updated plan to Members at the meeting.

l.      Those in attendance were introduced, the proposed order in which verbal representations would be heard was outlined, and the amount of time parties would have to speak was detailed.

2. In response, the following comments and questions were received:

a.    Cllr Ozaydin asked that Ms Green let speakers know 50 seconds in advance of their time elapsing, as opposed to 30 seconds,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

New Premises Licence Application

Mr Samaroo conveyed that the applicant was present, but in light of some of the implications made by residents in their written representations that they felt threatened by him, the applicant wanted to check that his presence wouldn’t make anyone feel threatened before entering the chamber/ joining the meeting. Cllr Bedekova, now chairing this item/application after Cllr Boztas’ departure, felt he should attend and checked with those present that they would be comfortable for the applicant to join the meeting, and he was invited to do so.

1. The introduction by Ellie Green, Licensing Team Manager, including:

a.    The sub-committee were to consider a new premises licence application for the premises now known as +355 Coffee Bar & Lounge, at 738 Green Lanes, London, N21 3RE.

b.    The premises was within the Winchmore Hill parade, and was close to a number of residential properties, which were located above the commercial parade, as well as in nearby residential streets.

c.     The application sought to sell alcohol on site between 10am and 10:30pm daily, with a closing time of 11:00pm. Section 1.3 of the report provided an indication as to the licensable times for nearby similar premises. 

d.    The Licensing Authority had initially provided a representation, namely seeking conditions, which had since been agreed in full by Mr Gazmend, so the Licensing Authority had withdrawn their representation. The list of agreed conditions between the two parties were provided in Annex 3. The Police did not submit a representation to the application. The Licensing team received 53 objections from other parties, namely local residents. This was a high volume of representations for this type of application typically; the objections could be seen in annex 2 and were based on all four licensing objectives.

e.    The objections included: the hours sought were too late for a coffee shop to have an alcohol licence; customers loiter on the pavement outside and block the path for pedestrians, and existing activity at the premises had raised concerns, including alleged unlicenced activity taking place inside. Additionally, objections were raised on the grounds that the premises did not have the appropriate planning permission to operate so that its primary function was the sale of alcohol, and the issuing of the licence would effectively breach planning permission. Some residents also did not believe that the conditions agreed between the applicant and Licensing Authority were sufficient to address their concerns.

f.      Section 5 of the report provided the position of the planning status for this premises, namely permitting a restaurant and café, but would not permit it to operate as a bar or pub type premises, where alcohol sales is the primary focus. However, it was made clear that planning and licensing regimes are totally separate, and each have their own enforcement powers to address any non-compliancy. Both permissions would need to be in place for the premises to trade lawfully, one regime did not supersede the other, but there is no requirement for one permission to be sought before the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.