Agenda item - OAKWOOD PARK CAFE, PAVILION CAFETERIA, OAKWOOD PARK, OAKWOOD PARK ROAD, LONDON, N14 6QB (REPORT NO. 109)

Agenda item

OAKWOOD PARK CAFE, PAVILION CAFETERIA, OAKWOOD PARK, OAKWOOD PARK ROAD, LONDON, N14 6QB (REPORT NO. 109)

Application for a new Premises Licence.

Minutes:

RECEIVED the application made by Oakwood Catering Ltd, for the premises situated at Oakwood Park Cafe, Pavilion Cafeteria, Oakwood Park, Oakwood Park Road, London, N14 6QB for a new Premises Licence.

 

NOTED

1.    The introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including

  1. The application was made by Oakwood Catering Limited for a new Premises License to be held in Oakwood Park Pavilion Café.
  2. The proposed operating hours are different to normal licenses as it varies seasonally. The hours to be open to the public:

 

March to November – 08:00am to 09:00pm daily

December to February – 09:00am to 6:00pm daily

          

           The supplied alcohol (on supply only) from:

           March to November – 11:00am to 09:00pm daily

           December to February – 11:00am to 05:00pm daily

  1. The application had received 7 representations by other persons, namely local residents. All 7 were against the grant of the application. The written representations can be found at Annex 3 (from page 21 onwards) of the report. The representations are based on all 4 of the licensing objectives.
  2. The Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority, which includes representations on behalf of Trading Standards, Environmental Health and Health & Safety, both initially submitted a representation, seeking modification to the conditions offered in the operating schedule by the applicant. These conditions were agreed by the applicant as detailed at Annex 5 (from page 41) of the report. The times and activities were not objected to.
  3. The hearing today was for the Licensing Sub Committee to determine whether the application supports the 4 licensing objectives. The Director of Oakwood Catering Ltd, Mr Ozgur Celebi, who submitted the application, was unable to attend the hearing but had sent his representative Svetlana Hubenova, known as ‘Sue’, Mr Celebi’s personal assistant. Mr Celebi did provide a written response to the local resident’s objections, as detailed at Annex 4 (page 39) of the report. However, the responses received back from those residents that did reply was not enough for them to change their position and their representations still stand.
  4. Apologies had been received from IP4 and IP7.

IP2 (Mrs Parsons) was intending to attend the hearing but she had sent her apologies along with a prepared statement that Ellie Green read out to the Committee:

·         The application seeks licensing hours that extend beyond the opening hours of the park. This is ultra vires.

I expect that it is unlikely that there will be anyone at the Committee who knows the details of the park’s opening hours. At the end of the summer, they are brought forward 15 minutes every Monday until the time of 4pm is reached, in October. The closing time then remains at 4pm until about the middle of January, when it is extended outwards by 15 minutes every Monday. No license can therefore be granted to 9:00pm for the late summer months or to 5:00pm from December to February as the park will be closed. That would make the whole license a nonsense and unsustainable.

The Parks Office has been consulted about this and there is no information about any plan to extend the park’s opening hours. Indeed, to do so would cost the council as extra staff would have to be employed to attend at the park to lock it each evening. (This is currently the final task of the park keeper as he leaves each evening.

The proposed opening hours and licensing hours included in this application demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding of this park by the applicant.

·         I support the comments made by my neighbour, Anelia Andreeva about children and CCTV issues.

·         The applicant states that he will instruct staff about the laws relating to the sale of alcohol. This is his legal duty, if granted the license. It is concerning that he notes it as an extra step that he is offering to take to counteract any potential issues. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the licensing laws.

·         Adopting a policy about safeguarding children and vulnerable adults does not mean it will be applied. He offers no statement about staff training, record keeping, refreshers or reviews.

·         The applicant is currently selling café supplies though a catering van that drives in and out of the park three or four days each week. The van parks on the grass. It is parked outside the boundary of the applicant’s premises and it is causing great damage to the grass on which it parks and manoeuvres, for which the council will no doubt be responsible for the cost of repairing. Although this is not an issue for this Committee, it reflects the applicant’s lack of respect towards the park and a cavalier attitude towards rules.

  1. Ellie Green confirmed that, in light of Mrs Parsons (IP2) e-mail, she double checked the parks opening and closing times, on the Council web site, and they did concur with the observations by Mrs Parsons.
  2. In response, the Chair asked Ellie Green, that in licensing terms a license can still be granted regarding the operation of the license. So, even if a license was granted till 9:00pm (and if the park is closed) the café is licensed to but is not in a position to operate. So it’s about the operation of the license rather than the action that is specified.
  3. Ellie Green confirmed that was correct and that the park itself does have a premises license for events and regulated entertainment, but not for the sale of alcohol. General hours would be 08:00am to 11:00pm. So a license could be enforced during those hours for any events that are put on.

 

2.    The statement of Svetla Hubenova, on behalf of the applicant, Mr Ozgur Celebi, including:

a.    Thanked residents for the representations in the report. A representation had also been sent to her regarding concern from a resident and that her children would see people in the area carrying alcohol.

b.    Mr Ozgur Celebi (applicant) sent his apologies for not being present at the hearing.

c.    Referring to Mrs Parsons statement (IP2) and that she had been talking about freedom of choice. It affects the applicant also because its freedom of choice for both parties. Some people would like to have that freedom to choose whether to consume alcohol or not.

d.    In terms of the parks opening/closing times, Mrs Parsons was right. This was about the park opening hours and not about the café opening hours.

e.    Ms Hubenova did not know what had been agreed by the Council as regards the mobile van trading by the café.

The Chair asked if this was particularly relevant, unless the activities of the applicant does have a bearing on a licensing application. The legal services representative (Catriona Mcfarlane) clarified that it only related to the actual points. A license is just a way of controlling how something is sold. As long as those rules are followed you are fine.

The Chair further commented that the committee is primarily concerned with the 4 licensing objectives:

·         Prevention of Crime & Dis-Order

·         Public Safety

·         Prevention of Public Nuisance

·         Protection of Children from harm

                 The application has to convince the committee that all preventative steps are being taken in order for the committee to grant.

f.     Mr Celebi was planning to install CCTV whether a license is granted or not. There would be a 30 day record of CCTV available to help with public safety and provide evidence to the Police, if needed.

g.    With regards to children seeing people with alcohol, there is a children’s policy and there would be posters put up showing that alcohol would not be served to under 18’s. All staff would also be trained in selling alcohol.

3.       The applicant’s representative responded to questions as follows:

a.    Councillor Levy asked why the applicant (Mr Ozgur Celebi) felt the need or wanted to sell acohol at any time? In what context did he want to sell alcohol? In response ‘Sue’ replied that she had never asked him that question. The Chair further clarified that it would help to balance the concerns to residents. It was about whether the steps being taken are appropriate to sell alcohol.

b.    The applicant had other concerns, most of them situated in parks. Sue further responded that for some reason he had never applied for an alcohol license at his other concerns but that she did not know why. Councillor Fallart stated that it’s probably the idea that someone would buy a meal and have a beer or glass of wine with their meal.

c.    Councillor Savva asked for an explanation as to how someone can work in an environment where you are controlled by a third party as regards the opening and closing of the gates of the park. He could not understand why the applicant wants extended hours where the park closes earlier than the required extended hours. In response, Sue clarified that in the winter months the park closed in general at 4:00pm but in February/March the park hours will be extended to closing at 5:00pm.

d.    The legal representative clarified further that the two legislative processes were completely different  i.e. in planning terms the Committee can grant a license that allows someone to trade until 03:00am but their planning permission only allows them to be open till 11:00pm. In this case, the parks department makes a decision about what hours they will open the park. However, if the license holder wanted to trade for longer hours, they can because that’s what the license states it can do, but the reality here is that no one can get into the park to buy alcohol because it will be closed. The license holder will therefore be restricted, even though the committee could grant the license as requested.

If the license is granted, Mr Celebi’s business will be controlled in how it can supply the alcohol to customers, by the terms of the license.

4.    The summary statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer including:

a.    Having heard the representations from all parties, it is now for the Committee to consider whether the new application  for Oakwood Catering Ltd is appropriate and in support of the licensing objectives.

b.    The licensing sub-committee could decide to either grant the license in full, grant the license in part, with amended times/activities and conditions or to refuse the application.

c.    The sub-committee’s attention was drawn to the relevant Home Office guidance and the Enfield  Licensing Policy as set out from page 2 of the report.

 

 

 

RESOLVED that

 

1     In accordance with the principles of Section 100(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

The Panel retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

2     The Chairman made the following statement:

 

‘Having heard, read, and listened to all the representations, the Licensing Sub-Committee has determined to grant the application in full.

 

The Panel did give serious consideration to all the points raised by all of the interested parties, and were sympathetic to the irritations which have prompted the concerns they have expressed in writing – and, in the case of IP2, presented orally to the Sub-Committee at the hearing by the Licensing Officer.

 

However, all such points were either speculative, factually incorrect with respect to the Licensing Act by which (along with local licensing policy and statutory Home Office Guidance) the sub-committee is bound, or were related to unruly activity in the park which has been and may still be ongoing, without there being a premises licence in operation at the café.

 

Our deliberations can and must be focused solely on assessing whether the applicant has, in our view, taken all appropriate steps to promote the licensing objectives through the control mechanisms provided if or when a licence is granted, with all its attendant conditions.

 

Both principal Responsible Authorities were of this view, and from their experience of such applications, were sufficiently satisfied by the applicant’s agreement to their proposed additional conditions as to feel able to withdraw their representations.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee concurred with this revised position

 

Should the worst fears of local residents be realised, the Responsible Authorities, the local residents themselves, and/or their local Ward Councillors always have recourse to reviewing any licence after a sensible period of time, citing actual supporting evidence; whilst the relevant Licensing Enforcement Officers pro-actively monitor - as well as react to - issues arising from the operation of any licence in the regular course of their duties’.

 

 

Supporting documents: