Agenda item

Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence.

RECEIVED the application made by Mr Kyriacos Pitsielis for the premises situated at The Penridge Suite, 470 Bowes Road, London, N11 1NL for a Variation of Premises Licence LN/200501167.

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

a.    The application was for variation of a premises licence for The Penridge Suite, 470 Bowes Road, N11.

b.    The venue was at the end of a commercial parade, on a busy road, with residential properties above the shopping parade and surrounding.

c.    The venue had been operating since before 2005.

d.    The application sought an extension of licensable hours, as set out in the table on page 80 of the agenda pack, with a latest hour of 01:30am. The table showed the amended times following the applicant’s agreement to Licensing Authority proposals. The extension was essentially 1.5 hours on Friday and Saturday and 1 hour on Sunday. The opening hours and recorded music would be reduced via the variation.

e.    The Monday to Thursday supply of alcohol hours was confirmed as correctly stated at 11:00 – 22:30. This allowed 30 minutes’ drinking up time.

f.     Ten representations had been received, against the application, from local residents, and were set out in Annex 4. Representations were based on prevention of crime and disorder, and public nuisance, and objected to the application in its entirety.

g.    The Licensing Authority had made representation originally. The reduced times and activities proposed were agreed and therefore the Licensing Authority representation was withdrawn.

h.    There were no representations from other responsible authorities.

i.      Agreed conditions were set out in Annex 5.

j.      Apologies had been received from the applicant who had to travel abroad at short notice on a family matter, but was represented by the Premises Manager and a Licensing Consultant. Councillor Christine Hamilton was also in attendance as a witness in support of the applicant.

k.    The ward councillor or other persons were not able to attend the hearing, but full consideration must be given to the written representations.

2.    The statement of Desmond Michael, Licensing Consultant, on behalf of the applicant, including:

a.    The Penridge Suite was not a nightclub or a disco. It was purely a function suite and catered primarily for family-type events, such as birthdays and christening parties. The clientele was very much family oriented and were not likely to cause nuisance or noise.

b.    Planning restrictions had been dealt with prior to the Licensing application. The Planning Inspectorate had granted a permission on appeal. A Licensing application had then been made for similar hours, and taking regard of the responsible authorities’ representations.

c.    Further to officers’ clarification of amended times agreed, it was confirmed that the hearing should proceed on the basis of the most up to date hours sought by the application as set out in the table on page 80 of the agenda pack. If a further extension to hours was required, another variation application would be made.

d.    The Penridge Suite had operated responsibly since 2003. In that time there had been no recorded complaints to the Licensing Authority.

e.    Recently, as a result of the public notice in respect of this hearing, some local residents had submitted some representations regarding parking issues. In attempting to address this, the management had invited all interested parties to a residents’ meeting last week, and two residents attended. The venue had set out various measures which could be put in place to address any perceived parking issues that may arise. It had been recommended that residents should contact the Council and keep an incident diary of their own to collect evidence which could be examined. Residents had also been offered a telephone number to contact the venue as any incidents were occurring, but had refused that offer. Both these measures were standard means of communication which were generally acceptable.

f.     Currently, attempts were being made to enter into partnerships regarding facilities for parking. Discussions were still ongoing, but the operators were trying to secure purpose-built parking a short distance away with provision of a taxi / minibus shuttle for patrons to the venue.

g.    A local resident had written to the venue, supporting the application, and it was offered to be read out. The Chair noted that a copy of the letter had not been provided by the applicant in time to follow due process and to be distributed to all parties, and this would affect the weight given to it by the Sub-Committee.

h.    The Premises Manager confirmed that the venue had been operating for 16 years, and that Arnos Grove Underground Station was close by, and had parking. Residents of Brunswick Park Road had raised concerns that Penridge Suite clientele parked in their road, but the operator was looking for a solution to help out.

i.      Councillor Christine Hamilton spoke in support of the venue, which she had used for a number of years to host charity events, including the Mayor’s formal fund-raising dinner in 2018 and a recent event for Enfield Town Football Club. There had been no problems experienced with dropping off or parking, and the management had been very supportive. Guests had not complained about parking as they had been directed to the station and other car parks. Noise had not been noted when leaving and event-goers said their goodbyes inside the venue, but with the tube station close by this area was always busy including people returning from London.

3.    Questions were responded to, including:

a.    In response to the Chair’s queries, Ellie Green confirmed that the non standard timings applied for were quite usual for venues and pubs. She also confirmed that no complaints in respect of this venue had been received by the Licensing Authority.

b.    In response to Councillor Dey’s query regarding the display of the licensing notice behind frosted glass, it was advised that the whole consultation had been re-started and re-advertised due to this error, and that all statutory requirements had been fully complied with.

c.    In response to Councillor Dey’s queries regarding residents’ concerns about noise within the written representations, the mitigation measures were confirmed by the applicant. A sign was displayed to remind attendees to leave quietly and respect local residents. Attendees were also asked to stay inside the venue until their taxi arrived, and if driving to the venue were asked to move on and not stand around talking. If attendees did drive it was usually for family events where there was less drinking. It was also not certain that the noise arose from Penridge Suite guests, given that the area was busy and there was also a petrol station in the vicinity. The venue was a family run business and did not receive complaints. The Planning Inspectorate appeal decision on page 112/3 referred to the absence of noise issues or complaints.

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 deliberated on the application from Penridge Suite and has also taken into consideration the written evidence submitted by objectors.

The Licensing Sub-Committee is granting the licence in full subject to the agreed proposals made by the Licensing Authority.”

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

(i)           The licensable activities and times are:

Conditions (in accordance with Conditions in LSC Report – Annex 5)

(ii)        Conditions 1 to 15, which are not disputed.