Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 29, 2024

Purpose:

Content: RESOLVED:   Application for a Premises Licence – Unit 7, 2-4 Orsman Road – REFUSAL   The decision of 29th October 2024   The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:   ·  The prevention of crime and disorder; ·  Public safety; ·  Prevention of public nuisance; ·  The protection of children from harm;   the application for a premises licence has been refused in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3, LP4, LP5 and LP6 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.   Reasons for the decision   The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application for a premises licence having heard concerns from the Responsible Authorities (the Metropolitan Police Service (“the Police”), the Planning Authority, and the Licensing Authority) believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the residential area.   The Sub-Committee took into consideration representations made by the Applicant’s legal representative that the Applicant had operated temporary events without complaints. Also the Applicant had responded to noise complaints and there were no outstanding objections or evidence from the Responsible Authorities as far as they were aware. The Applicant’s legal representative contended that there was no evidence or representation from the Environmental Protection Service and there were no complaints about dispersal.   The Sub-Committee decided to refuse the premises license because of the representations from the Responsible Authorities raising concerns about the risk of crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee felt the premises would undermine the licensing objectives and they were concerned about the impact on the local residents particularly late at night.   The Sub-Committee noted that fire safety issues needed to be addressed.   The Sub-Committee took into consideration that the Planning Authority made representations that the Applicant did not have a lawful use of the premises. The Sub-Committee took into account that planning enforcement notices were issued which are still in force, and an ongoing enforcement matter, which undermine the licensing objectives, in particular the crime and disorder objective.   The Sub-Committee took into account that the Police made representations that they would not support any application that would affect the crime and disorder of the area and would result in criminal offences. The Police contended that the planning matter was a serious concern and the hours were in excess of core hours. In addition, they had concerns about noise from the venue affecting local residents. The Police also requested removal of off sales from the application.   The Sub-Committee took into consideration that there was a pending prosecution in respect of the planning permission and the lawful planning use of the premises. The Sub-Committee is aware that it is necessary for the premises to have a valid planning permission. The Sub-Committee felt it would not be appropriate and were not persuaded to grant a premises license where there was an alleged unlawful use of the premises that was also subject to ongoing legal action.   The Licensing Authority made representations that they had concerns about the licensing objectives being undermined and they are aware of nuisance that has resulted from the temporary event notices and the hours are in excess of Policies LP3 and LP5 relating to core hours and planning.   The Licensing Authority made representations that the application should be refused or deferred until after the outcome of the planning prosecution.   The Applicant’s legal representative made representations that performances of live music are very rare; they are not a nightclub and it is a lounge. The Applicant is seeking an alcohol licence closing at 04:00 to manage dispersal from the premises and they will have a low number of customers at that time. The Applicant’s legal representative made representations that there was no crime and disorder at the premises, and there is lawful Planning Permission use under Class E.   The Applicant’s legal representative made representations that the premises held cultural events at weekends such as Turkish events. The Applicant’s legal representative contended this is a community space used for community events.   The Sub-Committee heard representations that the Police needed a Dispersal Plan from the premises because they have received complaints from local residents. The Sub-Committee took into account that the Applicant did not agree to the removal of the off sales.   The Sub-Committee took into account that currently the premises has an existing premises licence with occasional temporary events. However, the Sub-Committee felt that granting this extension will result in a negative impact on the local residents and the residential area.     The Sub-Committee took into consideration when refusing this application that each case is considered on its merits. The Sub-Committee believed that the licensing objectives could not be promoted by granting this application for a premises licence and as such believed it was appropriate to refuse the application in its entirety.   Your right to appeal   If you are aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction attached to this decision, you have the right to appeal to the Thames Magistrates Court, 58 Bow Road, London E3 4DJ within 21 days of the date you receive this written decision.   You can also contact the court by email: northlondonmc@justice.gov.uk