Agenda item

Application for variation of a Premises Licence.

RECEIVED the application made by Stonegate Pub Company Limited for the premises situated at The Occasional Half, 66 – 77 Green Lanes, London, N13 4TD for a Variation of a Premises Licence (LN/200502147).

NOTED

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

a.    The application was for a variation of a premises licence by Stonegate Pub Company Limited for The Occasional Half, 66-77 Green Lanes, N13.

b.    The premises was in a mixed commercial parade on a busy road, with residential properties in surrounding streets and above commercial premises.

c.    The pub had been operating since before 2005.

d.    The application sought an extension to hours to 01:00 for alcohol sales on Friday and Saturday with 01:30 closing: this would be a one hour extension on two days per week only. The amendments to non-standard timings were set out on page 3 of the officers’ report.

e.    There were three representations against the application by other persons who were local residents, marked as IP1 to IP3 in Annex 4 of the report. The representations were based on the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, and the prevention of public nuisance, and objected to the application in its entirety.

f.     Councillor Georgiou was the Bowes ward councillor speaking on behalf of the objectors at the hearing.

g.    There were no representations from the responsible authorities.

h.    No modifications to the conditions of the licence were sought. Therefore the conditions were as existing and set out in Annex 2.

i.      Three representatives of the applicant were in attendance: Andy Grimsey (solicitor, Poppleston Allen), Susan Smyth (General Manager and DPS), and Tim Greaves (Area Manager, Stonegate Pub Company).

j.      Equal consideration must be given to written representations as to oral representations at the hearing.

2.    The statement of Councillor Achilleas Georgiou, Bowes Ward Councillor, including:

a.    The officers’ report should read Councillor Achilleas Georgiou, rather than Alessandro Georgiou.

b.    Residents, particularly those living in Kelvin Avenue, had been affected by anti-social behaviour in Green Lanes, though not necessarily from The Occasional Half’s customers, and many would say that The Occasional Half had been a good neighbour. They believed that where there was anti-social behaviour currently, the opening of the pub for extended hours on Friday and Saturday would only add to the misery of residents’ experience.

c.    The vicinity was already noisy on Friday and Saturday and anti-social behaviour occurred. The alleyway from Kelvin Avenue, behind The Occasional Half was where a lot of undesirable things went on, and the Police had to be called to that in the past.

d.    Ward councillors had argued for alleygating, and got gates installed. Unfortunately, some of the users (from premises with keys) were not good at locking the gate and the alleyway was left open, which attracted anti-social behaviour and affected the residents from no. 2 Kelvin Avenue upwards. It made the area unsafe. Young women had been accosted there in the past.

e.    Residents were also concerned along Green Lanes by people, often smokers, out on the pavement outside pubs, restaurants and other premises, causing litter, including cigarette butts and broken glass, though it was difficult to know how that may be mitigated.

f.     Residents were also concerned about noise from piped music in the pub.

3.    Councillor Georgiou responded to questions, including:

a.    In response to the Chair’s query regarding the number of licensed premises in the area open until similar times, it was acknowledged that there were several, and that there was already anti-social behaviour in the area at night. He had driven along Green Lanes at midnight last Friday and there was a lot of activity and a thriving night life. Residents were concerned about inappropriate activities on the street and would rather that people were inside premises.

b.    In response to the Chair’s query about a notice on the alley gate to ensure it remained locked, it was advised that there were a number of premises with keys to the alley gate, including The Occasional Half, but some other premises were not as responsible in respect of keeping the gate locked. This was an issue the Council should look into and speak to key holders. The Occasional Half suffered because of the situation and the flytipping.

c.    The Chair queried why a one hour extension for a pub with a good reputation would make things worse. It was clarified that there was not an accusation of bad behaviour linked to The Occasional Half as on the whole the pub was recognised as a good neighbour, but residents felt that granting the application would extend a problem that already exists.

d.    In response to Councillor Levy’s query, it was confirmed that this part of Green Lanes was not in a Cumulative Impact Policy area.

e.    Councillor Levy noted that the residents’ concerns had been spoken of in a generic way, and asked whether it was considered The Occasional Half had taken appropriate steps to promote the licensing objectives, or if there were objections relating to the pub’s operating schedule. Councillor Georgiou advised that nothing said to him by residents related to the operating schedule, and there was no evidence whether or not anti-social behaviour had arisen directly from The Occasional Half.

f.     Councillor Georgiou further agreed that the 14 Temporary Event Notices (TENs) had not resulted in residents’ objections, or evidence that The Occasional Half was not taking appropriate steps to promote the licensing objectives.

4.    The statement of Andy Grimsey, solicitor on behalf of the applicant, including:

a.    Stonegate Pub Company was an award winning operator.

b.    Susan Smyth was the long-term and very experienced manager.

c.    The TENs events were important as they gave the pub the opportunity to trade to a later hour temporarily. If there had been complaints from those events, a different view may have been taken in respect of this application.

d.    The existing robust conditions on the licence were highlighted.

e.    There had been discussions with Police in respect of CCTV in 2015.

f.     The mention of takeaway food containers and spirit bottles in the objections could not be linked to this pub.

g.    The operator ensured repeated staff training on alcohol sales, displayed notices to customers to be quiet when leaving, kept doors and windows closed, and made sure that the door leading to Kelvin Avenue was not used for access.

h.    The pub had a noise limiter in situ for many years. There had been no complaints about noise, or incidents at the pub.

i.      The applicant wanted to allow customers to stay in their controlled environment. At least 90% of customers were local people. The pub would like to keep its customers, rather than them heading off to Wood Green to premises with a later licence.

j.      When customers left the pub, the vast majority used Green Lanes rather than Kelvin Avenue.

k.    The offer provided by the pub included a quiz on Sunday, karaoke or DJ once a fortnight, and live televised sport. None of that was proposed to be changed. No application had been made to extend live music. The typical age of customers was 25 upwards.

l.      The alleyway did not belong to the pub, and they were a victim too when it was not secure. The possibility of installing CCTV was being discussed if that could be done legally. It was not known who had keys to the gate. The manager had tried to accommodate residents’ concerns, for example deliveries were moved through the front of the premises, and at an appropriate time of day.

m.  There was no specific evidence of problems linked to the premises. It had been acknowledged that the pub was ‘a good neighbour’. There was circumstantial evidence of anti-social behaviour but the pub had been a victim too. The pub did their best, for example conducting litter sweeps in and beyond their demise. In the absence of any specific concerns, he asked that the application be granted. There was always the option of review of the licence if there were any problems.

5.    The applicant and representative responded to questions, including:

a.    In response to Councillor Dey’s queries regarding the alleyway, it was confirmed this was a shared space which ran along Green Lanes behind the commercial premises, for access. When gates were initially installed, the commercial premises were given keys. Unfortunately, some people leave the gate open, and this was impossible to police as it was not known who had keys. They alleyway was not part of the pub premises or in its ownership.

b.    Councillor Levy asked if there were any further conditions which could be voluntarily added to the licence which could allay the fears of the ward councillor and residents. The applicant’s solicitor advised that he had examined the existing operating schedule and honestly did not think any further conditions were required. A hotline to the pub manager had been suggested, but everyone already knew her number. There was already a noise limiter in place. History showed that this pub was well run.

c.    In response to Councillor Levy’s queries it was advised that several patrons of the pub were also residents of Kelvin Avenue, and that pub operators had spoken to customers to gather views about the extension, but not carried out any active promotion in the area. There had been investment by Stonegate Pub Company in the pub and it was looking nice, meaning that people would also treat it better.

6.    The summary statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, that, having heard the representations of all parties, it was for the Licensing Sub Committee to consider whether the application promoted the licensing objectives and to take the appropriate steps, bearing in mind the relevant guidance and policy set out from page 5 in the officers’ 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 Chair made the following statement:

Having considered all the written and oral submissions, the Licensing Sub Committee is satisfied that the applicant had taken appropriate steps in ensuring that the application for a variation of the licence for an extra hour and supply of alcohol on Friday and Saturday up to 01:00am and closing at 01:30am will not have a negative impact on the area.

The Licensing Sub Committee was not persuaded by representations against the application because there was insufficient evidence the nuisance could be attributed to these premises.

Therefore the application is granted in full.

3.         The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED IN FULL.

Conditions (in accordance with Annex 2 (Part 2, Annex 1 of the premises licence)

(i)            Conditions 1 to 19, which are not disputed.