The Licensing Sub Committee B refused an application for a new premises licence for Doppio Zero, Ground Floor Cafe, 4 Gillespie Road, London, N5 1LN after hearing evidence from local residents about breaches of licensing law, planning rules and concerns about fire safety at the premises. The Sub-Committee also adjourned consideration of an application for a new premises licence to allow late night refreshment at Chicken Cottage Holloway Road, 169 Holloway Road, London, N7 8LX.

Doppio Zero, 4 Gillespie Road, N5 1LN

The Sub-Committee refused the application for Doppio Zero after hearing evidence from a local resident that the applicant, Mr Clark, was not the owner of the business and had never visited the premises.

The resident told the Sub-Committee that the owner of Doppio Zero had:

• Erected an unlawful tent extension at the front of the property that was a fire hazard.
• Caused noise nuisance to local residents by playing loud music.
• Sold alcohol without a licence.
• Failed to submit the licensing application correctly by not advertising the application in a local newspaper.

The resident's evidence was supported by the Licensing Officer's report which stated that an enforcement order had been served in respect of the unlawful structure on 13 November 2024, and that the business had been served with a Section 19 closure notice on 13 September 2024 after being found to be selling alcohol without a licence.

The Sub-Committee noted that Doppio Zero was located very near to Emirates Stadium, a fact which meant careful management of the dispersal of customers would be needed to prevent public nuisance.

In response to the evidence given by the resident, Mr Clark told the Sub-Committee that he would be working alongside the owner to provide training for staff at the premises and managing the premises during operating hours. He acknowledged that there was no written contract covering his role, and that he had not started working at the restaurant. He said he had previously worked in bars, but not in a restaurant or hot food takeaway. He said that his plan for the business was to make it classy with cocktails, and that there would be seated drinking if food were ordered. He also said that if he ceased to be involved in the business he would ask for the licence to be revoked as he would not want his name on a licence for a premises he was not involved with.

The Sub-Committee found the evidence given by Mr Clark to be unconvincing. They concluded that he did not have sufficient knowledge of the licensing regime, or sufficient experience to manage the business. They also concluded that they could not be confident that he would manage the premises in accordance with the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee was disappointed that the owner of the premises did not attend and sent an associate in his stead.

The sub-committee decided to reject the application to grant a licence.

Chicken Cottage, 169 Holloway Road, N7 8LX

The Sub-Committee decided to adjourn its consideration of the application by Chicken Cottage for a new premises licence to allow late night refreshment from 23:00 to 02:00, seven days a week. The Sub-Committee decided to adjourn after hearing from the Metropolitan Police that they had a number of concerns about the application.

With reference to the above application the Metropolitan Police, as a Responsible Authority, are objecting to the new Premises Licence Application for late night refreshment and believe that if granted as made this application would undermine the Licensing Objectives as the application currently seeks operating times out of framework hours for late night refreshment trading. The application did not appear to provide any clear case for exceptional cultural or other reasons or offer additional safeguarding measures to prevent issues or detail why there would be no adverse impact in regards to the potential for crime and disorder or anti-social behaviour resulting.

The Sub-Committee also heard from the Council's Licensing Authority that they had a number of concerns about the application.

The applicant has not put forward any mitigation or information in the operating schedule to demonstrate that these premises would not have a negative impact in an area saturated with outlets for take away and delivery of food.

The Licensing Authority also raised concerns about the management of delivery drivers, asking:

It is not clear from the application where delivery drivers would wait and or where they would pick up orders.

This was a particular concern as the premises is in the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park Cumulative Impact Area.

These premises are located in the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park Cumulative Impact Area therefore the Licensing Sub-Committee will need to consider Licensing Policy 3, which states that there is a presumption of refusal unless the Sub-Committee is satisfied that there will be no adverse cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee asked the applicant to provide further information in relation to the management of the premises, and to address the concerns raised by the Police and the Licensing Authority. The Sub-Committee will reconsider the application at a future meeting.