Agenda item
Application by Abshir Mohamud Gulled for a Premises Licence for 'The Lodge' (226-228 High Street, London, NW10 4TD) pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003
The application is for a premises licence is for the sale of late night refreshments and the provision of regulated entertainment from 12.00 until 00.00 Sunday to Thursday and until 05.00 the following day Friday and Saturday.
Decision:
The Chair delayed the start time scheduled for this hearing in order to allow sufficient time for the applicant’s attendance. The Sub-Committee noted the failure of the applicant and/or his representatives to attend the hearing. The Chair welcomed the objectors and their representatives to the meeting and after general introductions explained the procedure that would be followed during the hearing.
Applicant
Members noted that the applicant and/or his representatives had failed to attend the hearing.
Licensing Authority
Ms Susan Figuiredo, Health Safety & Licensing introduced the matter and drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the applicant’s request for the grant of a premises licence for the sale of late night refreshments and the provision of some regulated entertainment from 12:00 hours until midnight Sunday to Thursday and until 05:00 hours the following morning Friday and Saturday.
In setting the background to the application, Ms Figuiredo stated that the premises which previously operated as a bar attracted several complaints and eventually became the subject of a review. She continued that following the Sub-Committee’s decision to reduce the hours and introduce additional conditions, the premises closed down. She referred to written representations that had been received from the police (who had given their apologies for absence), the Council’s Safety Surveyors, Environmental Health Officers local residents and their representatives who were in attendance.
Objectors
Mr Gareth Hughes (representative of Mr Gilchrist, an objector).
Mr Hughes started by referring to the statement submitted by the Police which he said put the case clearly against the grant of a premises licence on grounds of the applicant’s failure to promote the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder. He pointed out that as the previous premises licence holder surrendered the licence to the Council the applicant had been operating the premises without a premises licence. He also referred to a catalogue of events which his client Mr Gilchrist had compiled over a long period of time which showed the consistent noise nuisance and disturbance generated by the operation of the premises as patrons were entering or leaving the premises. Most residents living close to the premises were therefore unable to enjoy their sleep particularly in the weekend when the operation continued until 05.00 hours the next day.
Mr Hughes continued that the Police were called several times to the premises to deal with disturbances but often got attacked by some of the customers. The Noise Patrol Team were also called several times to the premises as were officers from the Environment Health Unit some of whom were attacked during some of their inspection visits. He produced a copy of a flyer that advertised an event on 26 September 2009 and raised major concerns about the premises for the residents. Mr Hughes urged the Sub-Committee to refuse the application for a premises licence for the reasons outlined above.
Mr Brian Cleaver
Mr Cleaver a local resident informed the Sub-Committee that he had often observed a large group of people going into and out of the premises and causing disruptive behaviour. He added that due to consistent noise nuisance and disturbance, firework displays outside of the premises and loud amplified music during the weekend until 05.00 hours the next day, the applicant had failed to comply with licensing objectives. Mr Cleaver also urged members to refuse the application for a premises licence.
Mr Glasmar Ali
Mr Ali the owner of the adjoining residential premises added that his tenants had been complaining to him about incessant noise nuisance and disturbance at the Lodge during weekend and often until 07.00 hours the next morning to the detriment of the quiet enjoyment of their sleep. He continued that the customers were often obstructing access to his property in addition to their inconsiderate parking. He added that whenever his tenants complained to the management of the Lodge they were faced with personal threats.
Mrs Paula Ranco
Mrs Ranco speaking in a similar vein added that the operation of the premises was encouraging drug taking and alcohol abuse which was evident in the following mornings. She brought to the attention of members the consistent vandalism to her son’s vehicle and in order to deter people from similar undesirable acts, she had had installed a closed circuit television at her house. She continued that noise and disturbance and loud volume of music generated at the premises were causing her lack of sleep especially during the weekends and that complaints to the management had only resulted in threats to her personal safety.
Mrs Elizabeth Murray
Mrs Murray informed the Sub-Committee that the operation of the Lodge had resulted in horrendous noise nuisance including street fighting, slamming of car doors and loud amplified music in the early hours of the morning. She added that these had often resulted in her lack of sleep.
At this point the objectors (the applicant failed to attend) were asked to leave the meeting room to enable the Sub-Committee to discuss the relevant issues of the application.
Having considered the submissions by the applicant and the submissions and the representations made by the objectors and other agencies, the Sub-Committee determined;
That the application by Mr Mohamud Gulled for the grant of a premises licence for the sale of late night refreshments and the provision of some regulated entertainment from 12:00 hours until midnight Sunday to Thursday and until 05:00 hours the following morning Friday and Saturday be not granted.
The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence from the Police and local residents that playing of music had occurred beyond the hours permitted under the previous licence and (following its surrender) when there was no licence in existence at all. In view of this, they considered that there had been a consistent disregard of the need to promote the licensing objectives to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance and that the applicant had demonstrated a total inability to manage the premises properly. In coming to its decision, members took note of the number and seriousness of the incidents that had taken place at the premises in breach of licensing requirements. They considered whether a licence could be granted with hours reduced from those sought but did not feel that this was appropriate, in view of their lack of confidence in the proper management of the premises.
Minutes:
The Chair delayed the start time scheduled for this hearing in order to allow sufficient time for the applicant’s attendance. The Sub-Committee noted the failure of the applicant and/or his representatives to attend the hearing. The Chair welcomed the objectors and their representatives to the meeting and after general introductions explained the procedure that would be followed during the hearing.
Applicant
Members noted that the applicant and/or his representatives had failed to attend the hearing.
Licensing Authority
Ms Susan Figuiredo, Health Safety & Licensing introduced the matter and drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the applicant’s request for the grant of a premises licence for the sale of late night refreshments and the provision of some regulated entertainment from 12:00 hours until midnight Sunday to Thursday and until 05:00 hours the following morning Friday and Saturday.
In setting the background to the application, Ms Figuiredo stated that the premises which previously operated as a bar attracted several complaints and eventually became the subject of a review. She continued that following the Sub-Committee’s decision to reduce the hours and introduce additional conditions, the premises closed down. She referred to written representations that had been received from the police (who had given their apologies for absence), the Council’s Safety Surveyors, Environmental Health Officers local residents and their representatives who were in attendance.
Objectors
Mr Gareth Hughes (representative of Mr Gilchrist, an objector).
Mr Hughes started by referring to the statement submitted by the Police which he said put the case clearly against the grant of a premises licence on grounds of the applicant’s failure to promote the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder. He pointed out that as the previous premises licence holder surrendered the licence to the Council the applicant had been operating the premises without a premises licence. He also referred to a catalogue of events which his client Mr Gilchrist had compiled over a long period of time which showed the consistent noise nuisance and disturbance generated by the operation of the premises as patrons were entering or leaving the premises. Most residents living close to the premises were therefore unable to enjoy their sleep particularly in the weekend when the operation continued until 05.00 hours the next day.
Mr Hughes continued that the Police were called several times to the premises to deal with disturbances but often got attacked by some of the customers. The Noise Patrol Team were also called several times to the premises as were officers from the Environment Health Unit some of whom were attacked during some of their inspection visits. He produced a copy of a flyer that advertised an event on 26 September 2009 and raised major concerns about the premises for the residents. Mr Hughes urged the Sub-Committee to refuse the application for a premises licence for the reasons outlined above.
Mr Brian Cleaver
Mr Cleaver a local resident informed the Sub-Committee that he had often observed a large group of people going into and out of the premises and causing disruptive behaviour. He added that due to consistent noise nuisance and disturbance, firework displays outside of the premises and loud amplified music during the weekend until 05.00 hours the next day, the applicant had failed to comply with licensing objectives. Mr Cleaver also urged members to refuse the application for a premises licence.
Mr Glasmar Ali
Mr Ali the owner of the adjoining residential premises added that his tenants had been complaining to him about incessant noise nuisance and disturbance at the Lodge during weekend and often until 07.00 hours the next morning to the detriment of the quiet enjoyment of their sleep. He continued that the customers were often obstructing access to his property in addition to their inconsiderate parking. He added that whenever his tenants complained to the management of the Lodge they were faced with personal threats.
Mrs Paula Ranco
Mrs Ranco speaking in a similar vein added that the operation of the premises was encouraging drug taking and alcohol abuse which was evident in the following mornings. She brought to the attention of members the consistent vandalism to her son’s vehicle and in order to deter people from similar undesirable acts, she had had installed a closed circuit television at her house. She continued that noise and disturbance and loud volume of music generated at the premises were causing her lack of sleep especially during the weekends and that complaints to the management had only resulted in threats to her personal safety.
Mrs Elizabeth Murray
Mrs Murray informed the Sub-Committee that the operation of the Lodge had resulted in horrendous noise nuisance including street fighting, slamming of car doors and loud amplified music in the early hours of the morning. She added that these had often resulted in her lack of sleep.
At this point the objectors (the applicant failed to attend) were asked to leave the meeting room to enable the Sub-Committee to discuss the relevant issues of the application.
Having considered the submissions by the applicant and the submissions and the representations made by the objectors and other agencies, the Sub-Committee determined;
That the application by Mr Mohamud Gulled for the grant of a premises licence for the sale of late night refreshments and the provision of some regulated entertainment from 12:00 hours until midnight Sunday to Thursday and until 05:00 hours the following morning Friday and Saturday be not granted.
The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence from the Police and local residents that playing of music had occurred beyond the hours permitted under the previous licence and (following its surrender) when there was no licence in existence at all. In view of this, they considered that there had been a consistent disregard of the need to promote the licensing objectives to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance and that the applicant had demonstrated a total inability to manage the premises properly. In coming to its decision, members took note of the number and seriousness of the incidents that had taken place at the premises in breach of licensing requirements. They considered whether a licence could be granted with hours reduced from those sought but did not feel that this was appropriate, in view of their lack of confidence in the proper management of the premises.