Home > Your Council > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms A & B, Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood

Contact: Democratic Services 

No. Item




The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and outlined the procedure to be followed.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that the representation had not been withdrawn.




Licensing Officer's Report pdf icon PDF 402 KB


The Licensing Officer presented the Senior Licensing Officer’s report.  He summarised the application and representations received, noting that the premises was now called Café Blue Bar and Bistro and a reduction had been made in the hours applied for the sale of alcohol on the premises, which would be 11:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday. Opening times had been reduced slightly and would be from 07:00 to 23:00 therefore Late Night Refreshment did not need to be included in the application.  He explained that the Local Planning Authority had objected to the use of the rear outside seating area after 18:00 as this could result in noise and disturbance for local residents; however the applicant had not accepted a finishing time of 18:00 for the use of this area.  He asked the Sub-Committee to make a decision based on the evidence presented, that was justified and proportionate.


In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the Licensing Officer explained that:


·                alcohol would only be supplied with food, as per the condition required by the Police Authority;


·                it had been agreed between the applicant and the Police Authority that the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) would be changed to Ms M Tas.  Ms Tas had recently been granted a personal licence by Enfield London Borough Council.  Mr Cicek would be the premises licence holder;


·                the Environmental Health Authority had been consulted and had made no objection.




Representations against the Application


Ms Humphries, for the Local Planning Authority (LPA), explained that a planning application for the premises had been received in late May 2016 and granted permission subject to hours of use.  This application had not included the rear garden area for seating.  This gave grounds for concern in respect of public nuisance because residential properties in Grosvenor Road were close to the rear boundary.  The LPA had suggested that the hours of use for the rear garden area be restricted to finish at 18:00 but this had been declined by the applicant.  It was the opinion of the LPA that use of this area up to 23:00 would have a noise impact on the properties to the rear.  If a premises licence was granted, the applicant would need to obtain additional planning approval for the use of the area, which might not be granted.


In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Ms Humphries confirmed that use of the rear seating area until 18:00 would be acceptable to the LPA.  Any later than this would not be characteristic of the area.




Representations in Favour of the Application


Ms Raymond, representing NARTS Food and Leisure Ltd, spoke for the applicant.  She explained that it had not been possible to reach agreement in respect of the use of the rear seating area.  The application had been advertised in a local paper and a site notice provided including residents above and around the premises.  No representations or objections from members of the public had been received. She quoted paragraphs 8.90 and 13.57 of the Home Office Section 182 Guidance (March 2015) in respect of the need to obtain separate planning permission, noting that the planning and licensing regimes were required to be kept properly separate.  No objection had been received from the Environmental Health Authority.  If a premises licence covering the outside rear area was granted, the applicant would apply for a variation of the planning consent.


The Licensing Officer noted that the representation from the Planning Authority came under the Licensing Objectives.


In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Ms Tas explained that:


·                she had obtained a personal licence the previous month, which she had received the week before the hearing;


·                there would be no alcohol without food; the plan was to have a nice cosy place, with no trouble.  Alcohol would not be served to a customer if staff thought it would cause a problem;


·                Ms Tas had worked as a restaurant manager for three years so was experienced with dealing with customers;


·                there was always many teenagers in the back road.  A note to customers asking them to respect residents would be displayed.  The business would do its best not to disturb neighbours.  There were already closed circuit cameras inside and out, and door staff would be used for the first two months.


Ms Uyran explained that the Licensing Agent (NARTS) had worked with the owner for many years, the owner was aware of the need for staff training.  Training modules in English and in Turkish were installed on mobiles and tablets.  There would be a refusals book.  The DPS could train staff on a one-to-one basis, or staff could go to NARTS for training if preferred.  The Police Authority was happy for Ms Tas to be the DPS; the only concern they had had with Mr Cicek as DPS was his poor command of English, as his management skills were acceptable.






Further questioning between the parties present took place and answers were given as follows:


Ms Tas clarified that ‘food’ meant a proper meal, such as breakfast or lunch. 


Ms Uyran stated that no application to change the DPS from Mr Cicek to Ms Tas had yet been made. 


The Head of Legal and Democratic Services explained to the Sub-Committee that Mr Cicek was the DPS named in the application.  However, anyone could apply to be the DPS provided they held a personal licence, and the application would be granted. 


Ms Uyran confirmed that the DPS was to be changed as required by the Police Authority.


The Licensing Officer explained that, for a change of DPS, the Licensing Authority needed to receive a consent form and an application form from the new DPS, and that the police had 14 days in which to raise any objections to the change.  The applicant had made an undertaking with the police that the DPS would be changed from Mr Cicek to Ms Tas.


Ms Uyran explained that the police would not object to the appointment of Ms Tas as DPS, because they had already confirmed they were content.




Closing Statements


Ms Humphries, for the Planning Authority, confirmed that the Planning Authority objected to any use of the garden area after 18:00 because of the impact this would have on the residential properties in Grosvenor Road.


The applicant’s representative declined to make a further statement.


The Licensing Officer outlined the options available to the Panel with regard to the determination of the application, noting that the Sub-Committee should only consider action appropriate to the promotion of the Licensing objectives, taking in to account the representations made, the Secretary of State’s amended Section 182 Guidelines and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.  He reminded the Sub-Committee that, in the event that an additional condition that had not been raised at the hearing was proposed, all parties should be made aware of it and given the opportunity to comment before the final decision was made.



At 2.41 pm, the Sub-Committee adjourned, to allow the applicant to provide an application for a change of DPS.


The meeting reconvened at 3.30 pm.


Closing Statements (continued)


The Licensing Officer confirmed that, during the adjournment, an application to change the DPS with immediate effect had been received by the Licensing Authority.  He explained that the Police Authority had 14 days in which to object to the change on public safety grounds, and that the application was deemed to be granted unless such an objection was received.


He repeated the options available to the Sub-Committee when making their decision.






At 3.32 pm the Sub-Committee adjourned to deliberate.


At 4.00 pm the Sub-Committee returned to the Chamber and the other parties were recalled.


The Chairman advised that, having regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State, the Sub-Committee had decided to grant the licence subject to the mandatory conditions, conditions that were consistent with the applicant’s operating schedule and the following additional conditions:


·         the use of the front and rear outside areas for the supply of alcohol shall be limited to the hours of 11:00 to 21:00 hours;


·         notices shall be displayed asking patrons not to disturb residents when using the outside areas, and when entering and leaving the premises.


Reasons for decision


The Sub-Committee imposed the two additional conditions with a view to ensuring that residents living in the vicinity of the premises would not be disturbed at noise sensitive times.



Appendix A: Decision Notice pdf icon PDF 65 KB