The Licensing Sub-Committee considered applications to vary premises licences for Skewd Asia and Avenue Club 2. The application for Skewd Asia was deferred, while the application for Avenue Club 2 was refused.

Skewd Asia, 127-129 Cockfosters Road, Cockfosters, EN4 0DA

The application for a variation of the premises licence for Skewd Asia was deferred. The application sought to extend opening hours, the supply of alcohol (on and off-sales), recorded music, and late-night refreshment. The Metropolitan Police objected to the application on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Licensing Authority had initially made a representation but withdrew it following mediation and agreement on conditions.

Avenue Club 2, 4 Green Lanes, London, N13 6JT

The Licensing Sub-Committee refused the application to vary the premises licence for Avenue Club 2. The application sought to extend opening hours, the supply of alcohol, live and recorded music, performance of dance, and late-night refreshment. Objections were received from the Metropolitan Police, the Licensing Authority, and a local resident (OP1).

The Police objected on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, citing concerns about the proposed late hours, dispersal of customers, noise, and the premises' location in a residential area and cumulative impact zone. They highlighted previous breaches of licence conditions by the venue and concerns about the applicant's history.

The Licensing Authority also objected, citing the prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm, and prevention of crime and disorder. They noted that the premises had allegedly been operating outside its permitted hours and that no new conditions had been proposed to address the cumulative impact of the area.

A local resident, OP1, objected on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour, detailing concerns about noise, litter, loitering, and potential for increased crime due to the proposed extended hours in a residential area.

The applicant's representatives argued that the venue was a new entity committed to responsible operation, with investments in CCTV, SIA door staff, sound limiters, and staff training. They stated that there had been no formal complaints in the past 12 months and that the proposed hours were a necessary business investment. They also offered additional conditions, including a sound limiter, dispersal policy, and designated smoking area.

However, the Sub-Committee noted that the Premises Licence Holder had been operating the premises outside of its current licensable hours, as evidenced by the Licensing Authority and Police. They concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the variation would not have a negative cumulative impact on the licensing objectives in an area already identified as having high levels of crime. Therefore, the application was refused.