Agenda item



RECEIVED the application made by Mr Metin Cengiz for the premises situated at Espresso & Co, 14 The Green, Winchmore Hill, N21 1AY for a New Premises Licence.




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


a.    The application by Espresso & Co was for a new premises licence for a coffee shop at a premises which had been a few different businesses, but none had required a premises licence.

b.    The application sought opening hours from 07:30 to 22:30 daily, with alcohol on-sales 11:00 to 22:00. The garden was included in the plan to be attached to the licence and therefore only on supplies of alcohol were required.

c.    The applicant Mr Metin Cengiz was the proposed premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor.

d.    The Licensing Authority originally made representation in respect of conditions: these were agreed and the representation was subsequently withdrawn. The agreed list of conditions was set out in Annex 5 of the officer’s report.

e.    No other responsible authorities made representations.

f.     Five representations were received from other interested parties who were local residents: referred to as IP1 to IP5 and set out in Annex 3 of the report. The objections were based on all four licensing objectives, and the residents lived in The Old Dairy Square and The Green.

g.    The applicant had provided additional information in Annex 4 of the report.

h.    In attendance at the hearing were the applicant and his business partner, and IP2 on behalf of the local residents.


2.    The statement on behalf of the applicant, including:


a.    This property had been a coffee shop for over five years, and was currently a community coffee shop, where the newly reformed local residents’ association had held a meeting recently.

b.    The simple menu at the premises was shown. Their A1 licence meant food could be re-heated only. There was no extractor. However, the premises was located between two restaurants, and close to ‘The Larder’ which was licensed with an outside seating area and ran a regular supper club to 22:30. Espresso & Co had no wish to operate in a restaurant manner.

c.    No application had been made for any entertainment licence.

d.    The application was for alcohol to be consumed only on the premises. There would not be alcohol taken from the premises to The Green.

e.    Opening until 22:00 was anticipated only for an occasional community event, less than once per month, and evening garden use even less frequently. The normal coffee shop closing time was envisaged as 17:00 as at the moment.

f.     The proposed drinks menu was shown in the agenda pack. The business was a family run coffee shop, but customers may enjoy a glass of wine or gin and tonic to accompany a light meal. There would be promotion of local producers.

g.    The licence requirements would be taken seriously. Staff would be trained, alcohol sales carefully monitored, and no alcoholic drinks would leave the premises.

h.    The garden was tiny and could not be allowed to hold more than 16 people seated.

i.      There would be no emptying of refuse outside of working hours.

j.      There would be no deliveries outside of working hours.

k.    No external speakers would be allowed.

l.      A Temporary Event Notice (TEN) was obtained for an event during the summer which ran to 20:00 with alcohol, and there were no complaints.

m.  Protection of children from harm was taken seriously. ‘Challenge 25’ would be in operation. The designated premises supervisor would always be on the premises and also monitor customer behaviour.

n.    Typical customers at the premises were aged 30 to 70, affluent, professionals, and parents.

o.    The applicant was happy to accept all the proposed conditions to the licence.

p.    The applicant was not intending to change the nature of the business, and was not anticipating opening until 22:00, but had taken officers’ advice when submitting the application. This was a family business which wanted to be part of the community.


3.    Questions were responded to, including:


a.    In response to Councillor Aksanoglu’s query about the business’s anticipated realistic timings, it was confirmed that day to day opening would be to 5pm. Events were not anticipated later than 8pm finish. However, officer advice was to apply for 10pm to cover all eventualities.

b.    In response to the local resident’s query why 10pm was applied for and that it might set a precedent, it was reiterated that officer advice was taken in respect of appropriate maximum times applied for, but the applicant would be happy to reduce the times as it was not the intention to routinely open until 10pm.

c.    The applicant advised that he would be happy to limit the use of later hours to a set number of times per year, and to agree to a condition to that effect.


4.    The statement of IP2 on behalf of local residents, including:


a.    She was speaking on behalf of five other residents, who mainly lived in The Old Dairy Square, which was in acute proximity to the premises.

b.    Her property was only separated from the premises by fences and sound could travel easily. Closing at 5pm was reasonable and did not cause problems. Later opening could be mitigated with limited occasional use.

c.    Serving of alcohol could lead to greater noise and smoking in the premises’ garden. This would be concerning even at 8pm as her young son’s bedroom was only 6 metres away and would have the window open in summer. There was also a young child two doors down. She would like consumption of alcohol to be kept inside the main building.

d.    She acknowledged that The Larder ran a supper club about once a month but that was inside largely.

e.    She was supportive of this local business, but concerned about setting a precedent if the application was granted and would prefer that alcohol was not allowed in the garden and that the garden was not used after 5pm.

f.     The ambient level of noise in the summer was described as remarkably

quiet and that few of the residences had a back garden.


5.    The Chair suggested a brief adjournment to allow mediation between the parties.


6.    The hearing resumed after a 30 minute adjournment. Ellie Green (Principal Licensing Officer) advised that the parties were grateful for the opportunity for discussion, and that applicant wished to amend the application as follows: general daily use 11:00 to 20:30, with alcohol on sales to 20:00; and 12 events per year at the originally applied for times. An additional condition had been offered that alcohol would be served in the garden only when accompanied by a table meal.


7.    The summary statement of Ellie Green (Principal Licensing Officer) that having heard all the representations it was for the Licensing Sub Committee to consider if the application was appropriate and in promotion of the licensing objectives. The steps were set out in para 7 of the officers’ report, together with further guidance and policies in para 5.


8.    The summary statement of IP2 that she was grateful for the steps agreed to limit the events and the additional condition, but remained concerned about late use of the garden area, which would have the most significant impact, even to 20:30. There was potential for noise and smoke and she would prefer a closing time of 19:00, or that smokers be directed outside to the front of the premises rather than the rear. The concerns on behalf of the residents were also about precedent and mitigation for the long term future. The comments of the Legal Officer were also noted that smoking was not a licensable activity and could not be controlled by the premises licence.


9.    The summary statement on behalf of the applicant that residents’ concerns were appreciated and that it was acknowledged that if the use of the licence proved problematic there would be an opportunity to request a review of the licence, or variation to reduce hours or amend conditions.




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:


“We have carefully considered all the information supplied both before and during this hearing. We are aware because we allowed an adjournment for the parties to negotiate their differences, that there was a possibility of some agreement. We were happy to see that the parties’ positions had drawn nearer even if in the end they were unable to resolve their differences completely. We believe the changes to the operating schedule and additional conditions offered by the applicant today are fair and reasonable. We appreciate the Interested Parties might feel they could have been tighter, however if the additional hours granted prove to be a problem for local residents they are able to call in the licence under the review procedure.”


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


(i)            Licensing Hours and Activities:




Final Times determined by LSC



Opening hours

07:30 – 20:30 daily



Supply of alcohol (on supply)

11:00 – 20:00 daily

Non standard timings

For 12 times a year the sale of alcohol will be permitted to 22:00


Conditions (in accordance with Annex 5):


(i)           Conditions 1 to 15, which are not disputed


(ii)          AND


16.       Alcohol shall not be supplied in the garden area otherwise than to persons consuming table meals.


17.       The licence shall only be used for the non standard times for a maximum 12 events per year.