Agenda item - BROADWAY FOOD & WINE, 759 GREEN LANES, LONDON, N21 3SA (REPORT NO. 111)

Agenda item

BROADWAY FOOD & WINE, 759 GREEN LANES, LONDON, N21 3SA (REPORT NO. 111)

Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence.

Minutes:

RECEIVED the application made by Broadway Food & Wine, for the premises situated at 759 Green Lanes, London, N21 3SA for a variation of the licence.

 

NOTED

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

a.    The premises is currently open 24 hours daily, but only licensed for alcohol off supplies, between 10am  and 10:30pm Sundays, and 8am to 11pm Monday to Saturday.

b.    Mr Nusret Seker, the Premises License Holder and DPS at Broadway Food & Wine, is seeking to extend the hours of alcohol to 8am to 2am daily, and to add conditions.

c.    The Metropolitan Police and Licensing Authority have not objected to this application with regards to the hours, but did seek additional conditions which have been agreed by the applicant, therefore the representation has been withdrawn. The conditions can be seen in Annex 5 (page 187) of the report.

d.    A representation was also submitted by an “Other Person”, namely Councillor Barry who is the ward councillor, and it is an objection against any variation based on the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. Councillor Barry’s representation can be seen on page 185 of the report.

e.    The applicant had not responded to the concerns raised by Councillor Barry. Councillor Barry could not attend the hearing and sent her apologies.

f.     Mr Seker (applicant) and Ms Ezgi Yildirim (NARTS Representative) were present at this hearing.

2.    Ms Ezgi Yildirim and Mr Nusret Seker (with interpretation assistance) responded to questions as follows:

a.    In response to Councillor Levy’s questions regarding an explanation as to why  the applicant was seeking to extend the licensing hours and what steps  the license holder was taking to promote the licensing objectives, Ms Yildrim advised that there was another premises across the road called ‘Jardins Food & Wine’ that operated at weekends till 1:00am.

As mentioned by Ellie Green, there had been an objection for this application by the Police and licensing authority, which wasn’t related to the extension of hours, but we made recommendations for a few conditions that were accepted.

b.    The Police had requested additional conditions related to a CCTV system and Mr Seker had accepted that. The CCTV system would be recording for 31 days and all staff would be trained to operate the CCTV system. Police would also be given access to recordings on the CCTV system, if required.

c.    In response to a further question by Councillor Levy regarding any further steps the applicant intends to take for operating beyond the current licensing hours, Ms Yildirim advised that the applicant had made an additional recommendation to the conditions already under license. That every staff member would receive training  every quarter from the DPS and that every 6 months  an outside agency would be training staff on under age sales and drunk awareness. These would be monitored in training books which will be kept at the premises.

d.    Ms Yildirim also added that the business premises had been licensed since 2005 and Mr Nusret Seker had taken over the business since July 2016. Mr Seker’s premises license had not gone to a review since 2005.

e.    The outside agency that will provide staff training is dependent on Mr Seker and who he appoints. NARTS could provide the training if requested to.

f.     Councillor Levy referred to Councillor Barry’s representation and the licensing policy at page 161 (para 6.8) which states that ‘stricter conditions as regards to licensing hours may be required for licensing premises situated in or immediately adjacent to residential areas. Councillor Levy asked if the conditions and the way Mr Seker wishes to operate the license, will address the fact that the premises are in a residential area. Mr Seker (through Ms Yildirim) advised that he has a very good relationship with the neighbourhood and residents in the area. This was the reason why there had been no objections raised by residents to this application.

g.    Councillor Levy also referred to Councillor Barry’s representation where she states that no other nearby retailer sold alcohol for off site consumption. However, the applicant did mention that a premises across the road called Jardin Food & Wine, did sell off site till 1:00am at weekends.

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

a.    Having heard all the representations, it was for the licensing sub-committee to consider whether the variation application for Broadway Food & Wine 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-committees attention was drawn to the relevant Home Office guidance (Section 10.13), and the Enfield Licensing Policy (Sections 8.4) relating to determining licensable hours, as set out on page 161 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:

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee has read and heard all submissions and oral representations and determined to grant the application in full.

 

We have heard that the premises have been licensed since 2005, with the current Premises Licence Holder being in his role of responsibility since 2016. In that time, there has been no cause to query or challenge the operation of the licence.

 

We further heard that when the principal Responsible Authorities sought additional and strengthened conditions, the applicant was willing to accept these without question.

 

By her own admission, Councillor Barry’s written objection states “I cannot provide evidence” that extended hours will result in a public nuisance, merely that it “could well result”.

 

In addition, the applicant affirmed that neither they nor the Licensing Sub-Committee had received any objections from local residents; and the panel concluded that Councillor Barry was speaking more in an individual capacity than representing any specific residents, because they are not mentioned in her written representation.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee has therefore concluded that the Premises Licence Holder has taken all the available steps for appropriate promotion of the licensing objectives, including the strengthened conditions sought by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Licensing Authority, which has informed the decision arrived at’.

 

Supporting documents: