Agenda item

Application for a new premises licence.

RECEIVED the application for a new premises licence at Hertford Road Sports & Social Club at the premises situated at 99 Hertford Road, Edmonton, London, N9 7EE in the name of Mr Metin Tarlacick. 

NOTED

1.    Before commencing the hearing of the above application, the Chairman was advised by the Principal Licensing Officer she had received a communication from the applicant's representative.

2.    The introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including the following points:

a.    On the morning of the hearing, an email was received from the Anva Architects, the agent for the applicant, requesting an adjournment/postponement of the hearing for the future date in order to make changes to the planning application. It was also advised they were unable to contact their legal advisor.  The principal licensing officer had tried to contact the applicants to find out more information, without success.

b.    Having consulted his colleagues, the Chairman stated they rejected the request for an adjournment/postponement. The principal reason was the licensing application can be heard on its own merits, without there even being planning permission in place.

c.    It was also felt that the applicant had plenty of time from 16^th April (when they were notified of the hearing date) to raise any concerns that would require adjournment.

3.    The licensing sub-committee having dealt with this initial matter, the Principal Licensing Officer proceeded to introduce the substantive application:

a.    This application was for a new premises licence in the name of Mr   Metin Tarlacick.  There is a current Club Premises Certificate in place in the name of Edmonton United Service Limited.

b.    Recent changes to the Licensing Act 2003, affecting licence requirements for recorded and live music were highlighted.

c.    Reference was made to 5.5 of the Licensing Sub-Committee Report, advising that the premises are located in the Edmonton Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) Area and this policy therefore applies to this application.

d.    In this respect, no further information has been forthcoming from the applicant.

4.    The statement by PC Martyn Fisher, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, included the following points:

a.    The premises in question is one of 4 CIP areas, one being Edmonton.

b.    The hours requested are outside core hours and outside the quoted policy statement in respect of refreshments and recorded music.

c.    There is a presumption that the application will be refused as outlined in the CIP as the area in question is of concern to the Police with previously reported crime and disorder incidents and changes to the core hours are likely to lead to increases in incidents, disturbances and public nuisances, therefore recommendation is for refusal.

5.    The opening statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, including the following points:

a.    Confirmation that the premises is in a CIP area.

b.    The applicant has not provided any additional information; therefore the CIP should not apply to them as the additional hours could lead to disturbances due to a residential area being nearby.  Recent complaints have been received in respect of noise nuisance issues.

c.    Current Club premises certificate is in place where only bona fide members and their guests are permitted entry. The new premises licence will not restrict entry to membership and therefore clients will be unknown.

d.    It was confirmed that both certificates can remain active, if newer one is agreed, the former being exempt from CIP.

e.    It was confirmed that Karen Cooper is still employed as Manager and was on her way to the hearing but was stopped by the agent (emails received 10:05am and 9:52am – Wednesday 27^th May 2015).

f.     Recommendation was made that the CIP policy be upheld and the times of the premises licence be restricted to those specified in the CIP.

6.    The closing statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, included the following points:

a.    That the Principal Licensing Officer had heard from Ms Cooper since the start of the hearing and was on her way to the hearing but was stopped by the agent (emails received 10:05am and 9:52am – Wednesday 27^th May 2015).

b.    Unless the applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the sub-committee, then the recommendation would be to uphold the CIP policy.

RESOLVED that

1.            The Licensing Sub-Committee did not retire to consider the application as there were no representatives for the applicant present, or members of the public.

2.            The Chairman made the following statement:

“Having read and heard all the information supplied by the Applicant, the Licensing Authority, Trading Standards and the Metropolitan Police Service (in the absence of the applicant and their agent) it was decided that a decision can be made in the Council Chamber to grant the application in part in line with the CIP times as detailed in the representations by the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards.  The Sub-Committee does not believe the applicants provided any additional information sufficient to exempt them from the CIP and those parts of the application outside the CIP guidelines have been refused.”

3.            The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved that the application be granted in part as follows:

(i)            Hours the premises are open to the public: Monday to Sunday from 09:00 to 00:30.

(ii)          Supply of alcohol (on supplies only): Monday to Saturday from 10:00 to 00:00 and Sunday from 12:00 to 23:30.

(iii)         Recorded music: Monday to Sunday from 09:00 to 00:00.

(iv)         Late Night Refreshment: Monday to Saturday from 23:00 to 00:00 and Sunday from 23:00 to 23:30.

Conditions in accordance with Annex 06 to the LSC report.