Agenda item

New Premises Licence Application

Mr Samaroo conveyed that the applicant was present, but in light of some of the implications made by residents in their written representations that they felt threatened by him, the applicant wanted to check that his presence wouldn’t make anyone feel threatened before entering the chamber/ joining the meeting. Cllr Bedekova, now chairing this item/application after Cllr Boztas’ departure, felt he should attend and checked with those present that they would be comfortable for the applicant to join the meeting, and he was invited to do so.

1. The introduction by Ellie Green, Licensing Team Manager, including:

a.    The sub-committee were to consider a new premises licence application for the premises now known as +355 Coffee Bar & Lounge, at 738 Green Lanes, London, N21 3RE.

b.    The premises was within the Winchmore Hill parade, and was close to a number of residential properties, which were located above the commercial parade, as well as in nearby residential streets.

c.     The application sought to sell alcohol on site between 10am and 10:30pm daily, with a closing time of 11:00pm. Section 1.3 of the report provided an indication as to the licensable times for nearby similar premises. 

d.    The Licensing Authority had initially provided a representation, namely seeking conditions, which had since been agreed in full by Mr Gazmend, so the Licensing Authority had withdrawn their representation. The list of agreed conditions between the two parties were provided in Annex 3. The Police did not submit a representation to the application. The Licensing team received 53 objections from other parties, namely local residents. This was a high volume of representations for this type of application typically; the objections could be seen in annex 2 and were based on all four licensing objectives.

e.    The objections included: the hours sought were too late for a coffee shop to have an alcohol licence; customers loiter on the pavement outside and block the path for pedestrians, and existing activity at the premises had raised concerns, including alleged unlicenced activity taking place inside. Additionally, objections were raised on the grounds that the premises did not have the appropriate planning permission to operate so that its primary function was the sale of alcohol, and the issuing of the licence would effectively breach planning permission. Some residents also did not believe that the conditions agreed between the applicant and Licensing Authority were sufficient to address their concerns.

f.      Section 5 of the report provided the position of the planning status for this premises, namely permitting a restaurant and café, but would not permit it to operate as a bar or pub type premises, where alcohol sales is the primary focus. However, it was made clear that planning and licensing regimes are totally separate, and each have their own enforcement powers to address any non-compliancy. Both permissions would need to be in place for the premises to trade lawfully, one regime did not supersede the other, but there is no requirement for one permission to be sought before the other.

g.    The premises was permitted to be open and trading as long as unlicenced activity was not taking place, such as the sale of alcohol, but the premises could operate by selling soft drinks and food between 8am and 11pm. If open after 11pm, a licence for late night refreshment would be needed. Conditions relating to the premises only become effective if/when the licence is issued.

h.    The applicant had submitted written representation, but this was received after the permitted deadline and so could not be accepted. The Licensing sub-committee were reminded that they were to give equal weight to any written and verbal representations.

i.      Those in attendance were introduced, the proposed order in which verbal representations would be heard was outlined, and the amount of time parties would have to speak was detailed.

2. Mr Samaroo, representing Mr Gazmend, made the following statement:

a.    The application was for a licence to sell alcohol until 10:30pm. The premises is primarily a café bar that would open during the day serving coffee shop style food and drinks until 11:00pm.

b.    A considerable volume of residents had raised concerns with regards to the application which the applicant had taken seriously. They felt OP1 had been the trigger, with most of the other objectors having similar concerns. There appeared to be an undertone with regards ethnicity and male dominated premises, which came as a surprise, given Enfield was a very diverse borough. The applicant’s representatives had spoken to Ms Green, as some of the objections were seen as vexatious and they did not believe they should have been allowed, but were included anyway.

c.     Some of the accusations, that the premises had breached conditions, were unfounded/unsubstantiated and untrue. OP1 had suggested that they happened to be passing the premises when the shutters were three quarters of the way down and could see lots of men in the premises drinking, smoking and gambling; but the only men in the premises at the time were builders, and they were not doing such things when they were working.

d.    The application had a very robust operating schedule, which had been gone through with the Police and the Licensing Authority, hence they were not objecting to the application.

e.    The applicant wanted to be part of the community, and wished to assure residents that they were all welcome. The premises was not aiming to attract mono-ethnic men standing on the pavement disturbing women walking by.

f.      There were concerns from Enfield residents that parts of the borough had lots of cafes which created issues, but there was nothing to suggest that Mr Gazmend would run a premises that would not be welcoming to the local community or cause issues.

g.    The committee were invited to look at the application on its own merits, and there was nothing to suggest the café run by Mr Gazmend, who had done a very good job and spent a lot of money making the premises look nice, would be anything but an asset to the area. It was felt that there were too many assumptions as to what the premises would be like.

3. In response, the following questions and comments were received:

a.    The Chair asked if the applicant had followed advice to check the planning permission. Mr Samaroo responded that if this were an application for a pub, bar or virtual drinking establishment, the applicant would have had to submit an application, but as it was a café for seated customers only, there was no requirement to apply for a change of use. The Chair queried why then officers had recommended the applicant check if they required planning permission. Mr Samaroo replied that he did not know why an officer had advised this, but that this was a licensing hearing and if planning had any concerns, they would have submitted a representation. He added that he had spoken to his planning agent who had advised him that under the application they were submitting, there was no need to change the planning use. Ms Green clarified that operating as a coffee bar did not require a change of use, but if time showed that primary sales were alcohol, then they would need to submit a change of use planning application to a bar, but it had been indicated that this would not be the intention. Cllr Ozaydin enquired how this could be monitored. Ms Green conveyed that planning could check this by asking for invoices and sales and making observations as to what the premises was being primarily used for.

b.    The Chair questioned whether the applicant was planning to play any music at the premises. Mr Samaroo advised that there were no plans for the applicant to have any regulated entertainment. He pointed out that up until 11pm, the provision of background music was deregulated anyway, so under the current legislation they could do this if they wanted to. The applicant was mindful of nearby residents and the provision of music above background level wasn’t something they wanted to do. Ms Green clarified that background music was not a licensable activity, this was music which did not require raising your voice to be heard. There was a default/ automatic entitlement with a licence that permitted the on-sale of alcohol to provide regulated entertainment between 8am and 11pm, but the applicant had expressed that this was not part of their business model.

c.     The Chair queried whether any residents had approached the applicant directly with regards to their objections. Mr Samaroo responded that nobody had come to the applicant with their concerns. He described that Mr Gazmend would have liked to have spoken with some of the residents. The applicant did not know who the residents that had objected were. The Chair clarified that it was Licensing Authority policy not to provide any details regarding the identity of residents who had submitted representations.

d.    Cllr Ozaydin enquired whether there was a designated smoking area at the premises. Mr Samaroo replied that one of the concerns raised in the objections related to mono-ethnic men standing on the curb and blocking the pavement, so the applicant had located the smoking area at the back of the premises. There had been a day when two tables and chairs had been put outside the front of the premises, but upon notification from the Licensing Authority that these were not permitted, they were instantly removed, and had not been put back out there since. A pavement licence had not been applied for yet, as they felt it would be wrong to do so until after the committee were minded to grant this licence. Mr Samaroo had spoken to Mr Gazmend who had indicated that when that time came, he would only want 8 chairs outside the front of the premises. The Chair asked whether the applicant had received any advice regarding the use of tables and chairs on the pavement. Mr Samaroo advised that he had not, that as soon as the applicant was notified that they weren’t allowed they were removed and not put back. The applicant had seen tables and chairs outside other premises on the street and assumed he would be able to add some too, and didn’t know a licence was needed. The applicant wanted to comply with the rules and work with all interested parties.

e.    Ms Green asked to see where on the plan the smoking area was located. The Chair followed up by querying how many people they would allow to use the area at a time. Mr Samaroo responded that a table and 3 chairs had been placed at the rear of the premises next to the parking area where smoking would be permitted, but that no food or drink would be served for people smoking there. Ms Green clarified that as it was likely private land, an application would not be needed, but enquired how this area was accessed. Mr Samaroo replied that it was accessed by going straight through the premises, down some steps, passed the toilets, and out the back door, on the left next to the parking area. Ms Green advised that the committee may want to add a condition that the plan be updated to show the smoking area. Mr Samaroo added that were the licence to be granted, they would speak to the Licensing Authority about putting a small designated smoking area at the front of premises and restricting it to 3 or 4 people whilst awaiting the application for a pavement licence. Ms Green highlighted that were a pavement licence applied for, then smoking at the tables and chairs in front of the premises would not be permitted. She added that one of the conditions which had been agreed was that there would be no more than 5 people outside the front of the premises and queried whether the applicant was offering to reduce this to 3. Mr Samaroo said that a designated smoking area would then be needed; it was a small premises, so 4 people maximum seemed sufficient. Ms Green advised that the committee may wish to reword condition 13 on page 211 to consider this. It was noted that this condition also prevented drinks being taken to the designated area when smoking.

f.      The Chair enquired whether the shutters were located at the front or back. Mr Samaroo conveyed that there were security shutters at the front of the premises.

g.    Ms Green asked if the windows at the front of the premises were frosted or clear. Mr Samaroo expressed that when the shutters were up there was clear glass, and the premises could be seen into.

h.    The council’s legal adviser asked if it would be helpful to the committee for Ms Green to establish the licensable times for nearby similar premises. Ms Green advised that these were located on page 112.

i.      The Chair questioned whether there had been any history of complaints of similar issues at nearby premises. Ms Green said there was potentially some noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour at venues open later than what was being sought in this application. She added that alcohol sales at similar nearby premises started as early as 8am and others went on until midnight, and some had longer periods than what was being sought by the application. Coffee Break was described as perhaps the most similar like for like for premises and served alcohol from 11am until 10:30pm.

j.      Cllr Steven asked if there had been any representation made by the Police. Ms Green responded that had not been, the comment they had provided, detailed in the report read “we have nothing of any significance from a crime and disorder perspective therefore we have no reps”. They were aware of the concerns and had undertaken their own observations and did not feel a need to make a representation. Mr Samaroo added that he consulted with the Police prior to the application, who advised they would be happier if the application stayed within the core hours, as Mr Gazmend was a relatively new operator to this type of business, and they wanted to see how things went. The agent had initially spoken to the Police about staying open later on Fridays and Saturdays, and it was recommended to keep to 10:30pm, and see if the applicant could prove he could run the business well, hence they had not objected, as any concerns had been dealt with in advance. The council’s legal adviser explained that the committee had no confirmation of this. Ms Green described that the premises was not within a communitive impact policy area, so the core hours did not apply, and those hours were 8am until midnight.

k.     The Chair enquired how the applicant would deal with drunk customers so as to avoid anti-social behaviour taking place at the premises. Mr Samaroo said that under the Licencing Act, the premises was not allowed to sell to drunk people and anyone who was drunk would not be allowed on the premises. It was not the type of place a drunk person would go to as they could only drink sitting down. Mr Gazmend added that he did not want to attract people who would cause trouble to his business, and he wanted to operate for a long time. If somebody was drunk, they would not be sold any alcohol and asked to leave if they were causing issues. He did not want his premises to generate excess noise and did not expect there to be issues.

l.      The Chair asked if staff at the premises were trained. Mr Gazmend replied that he was at the premises almost every day, and his staff were very good. Mr Samaroo added that he had suggested that to the applicant that he was an authorised trainer, and did a level 1 course which covered responsible alcohol retailing and if the licence were granted, he would be happy to provide this training to the staff, it be recorded in a training book and refresher training done every 3-6 months.

m.   The Chair asked if the smoking area at the back of the premises was covered by CCTV. Ms Green clarified that consumption was not a licensable activity, but the smoking area could cause a nuisance, and it could be conditioned that it is added to the plan. Mr Samaroo expressed that the table at the back of the premises for smoking was covered by a CCTV camera, but this was not a permanent solution to what the applicant wanted to achieve. If the licence were granted, they would look to have a small, designated smoking area at the front of the premises which was also monitored by CCTV, and with the glass front there would be lots of natural surveillance.

n.    The Chair questioned why the smoking area had not been included in the plan. Mr Samaroo explained that when the plan was submitted the smoking area didn’t exist, the premises had only been open three weeks or so, and the smoking area was created in response to residents’ comments and to give the builders somewhere to smoke out of sight; it was not a permanent solution. Ms Green advised that this could be reflected in additional conditions and the updated plan be resubmitted.

o.    The Chair asked how the applicant would communicate with the community and if they would provide their contact information somewhere so that residents could get in contact with him if they had any issues. Mr Samaroo said that one of the proposed conditions was for the applicant to make their number available to local residents. He may choose to do this by posting his business card through local residents’ doors, he could also put his contact information in the window of the premises.

4. The other party was offered the opportunity to make a representation and ask questions, but they had nothing they wished to add.

5. The following closing summaries/points were made:

a.    Ms Green outlined the options available to Members of the sub-committee to make, and directed them to the relevant guidance.

b.    Mr Samaroo expressed that the hours sought by the application were within the core hours of Enfield’s Licensing policy. The premises was not a vertical drinking establishments, customers must be seated to be served alcohol. The premises was primarily a café. Mr Gazmend had taken very seriously the objections of residents and had looked at ways of ensuring he and his business were part of the community. As mentioned, additional training would be provided for staff in dealing with alcohol sales etc. The Enfield licensing policy had been carefully looked at when submitting the application, so that conditions were precise, enforceable and tailored to create a robust operating schedule, so residents need not be concerned. The contact information for the manager would be provided and engagement with the Licensing Authority would continue. It would be important for Mr Gazmend to attend the local CAPE meeting to understand what was going on in the area. They hoped the committee would grant to application based on its own merits, given the robust conditions which addressed concerns, no representation from authorities, and nothing to substantiate complaints relating to noise and anti-social behaviour.

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and adjourned the meeting at 15:32, while the committee went away to deliberate. The Panel retired with the legal adviser and committee administrator to consider the application further, and then the meeting reconvened in public at 16:07.

The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED IN PART as follows:

Licensing Hours and Activities:

Conditions in accordance with Annex 3:

Conditions 1 (b)-(i), 2 to 12, 14 to 20, and amended conditions as follows:

Amended Condition 1(a): The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system covering both the interior and exterior of the premises, including the rear designated smoking area, and shall be installed to current Metropolitan Police/Home Office standards and shall continually record whilst the premises are open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises.

Amended Condition 13: There shall be no more than 3 persons using the outside of the back of the premises, designated for the purpose of a smoking area, within the operating hours. This area shall be adequately supervised to control the number and behaviour of patrons so as to not cause noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour. Notices shall be displayed in the area specifying the terms of its use and asking patrons to respect the needs of local residents and to use the area quietly. No alcoholic drinks or glass containers shall be taken into any smoking area at any time.

The Chair made the following statement:

“After considering the papers and evidence provided to the Licensing Sub-Committee and having listened carefully from the Applicant and reading the objections of the residents which is contained within the Agenda, the Licensing Sub-Committee have reached a decision.

The Licensing Sub-Committee was particularly mindful that +355 Coffee Bar is located in close proximity to a residential area but having taken into account the Licensing Objectives, and provisions to mitigate the risk, the Licensing Sub-Committee were persuaded that the application can be granted following the Applicants agreement to modify the conditions as proposed by the Licensing Authority (as set out above).

The Applicant shall also submit an amended plan to the Licensing Team, which incorporates the designated smoking area to the rear of the premises.”

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and contributions and the meeting ended at 16:09.