The meeting considered applications for new premises licences from three different businesses, and a proposal to revoke a personal licence. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the premises licences with a number of conditions, and to revoke the personal licence.

Proper Tacos, Unit 6, Nags Head Market, 22 Seven Sisters Road

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Proper Tacos, a Mexican food stall in Nags Head Market.

The applicant stated that alcohol sales were ancillary to food and would not be sold without food. The stall is very small, with a 3m x 3m kitchen and a 1m x 3m service area with six seats. They committed to removing the seats when busy, to keep the service area clear, and to not selling alcohol at these times. They also said that they would only sell bottled Mexican beers and lagers, and would not use delivery platforms.

A local resident objected to the application. There have been a number of previous applications for alcohol licences for the market, which residents had opposed, and they felt that there were already too many licensed premises in the area. The resident said:

The area already had too many licensed restaurants and shops. The area was really busy with a lot of crime and noise and residents did not want any more. The local resident stated that his children could not sleep due to shouting and other noise and he and other residents were affected by drunken people peeing on walls and vomiting. The fear was that the market operator was behind this application and that if the application were to be granted all the other eateries on the ground floor would then apply.

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the licence with the condition that no spirits be sold on the premises. They noted the small size of the stall and the limited hours being applied for, and were satisfied that the applicant would be able to manage the sale of alcohol responsibly.

Wemimz at the Post Office, 116-120 Seven Sisters Road

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Wemimz at the Post Office, a convenience store located in a post office.

The applicant, Ms Adedaramola Badejo, stated that she was applying for the licence to improve the sustainability of the Post Office, which provides a much needed service in the area. She wanted to create a one stop shop for customers. She also said that only one out of six fridges would contain alcohol, and that only a personal licence holder would be able to sell alcohol.

Councillor Gary Heather objected to the application on the grounds that the area was in a Cumulative Impact Area.¹ He felt that the sale of alcohol would hinder the achievement of the four licensing objectives:

1. The licence should not be permitted as the location is in a Cumulative Impact Area that is already awash with alcohol sold by many other outlets.
2. Selling alcohol both on the premises and the delivery of off sales will hinder the achievement of the council’s four licensing objectives in this area: the prevention of crime and disorder; the prevention of public nuisance; public safety; and the protection of children from harm.
3. The noise generated in the nearby residential areas is likely to disturb local residents and impair their amenity, and be detrimental to the wellbeing of children trying to sleep in the evening.

He was also concerned about the impact of increased parking in the surrounding residential areas, given that Seven Sisters Road is a red route, and the lack of security staff at the premises.

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the licence with the condition that alcohol sales start at 10am, in line with the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy on framework hours for off-licences in close proximity to schools and other high-risk areas. They noted the applicant's commitments to CCTV coverage, Challenge 25, and staff training, and were satisfied that the sale of alcohol would not add to the cumulative impact in the area.

Donnamu, 27 Baron Street

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Donnamu, a Korean restaurant.

The applicant, Mr Jack Kim, stated that alcohol sales would be ancillary to food , and that the restaurant would operate a full dining service. He said that the restaurant was aiming to attract families, not people who were solely focused on drinking, and that it had invested in double glazing and sound proofing to minimise disruption to neighbours. There would be no delivery services.

A local resident objected to the application on the grounds of public nuisance. They said:

This establishment is applying to operate late night hours (open until 2am Monday to Sunday) and serving until 1:30am. I am against this request as can and likely will cause a huge disturbance in sleeping hours and not to mention increase in anti social behaviour in the area.

They were also concerned about the impact of the late-night hours on their children, and the increased risk of crime and disorder.

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the licence with the condition that the applicant provide their telephone number to neighbours so they could contact them in case of any disturbances. The Sub-Committee were satisfied with the applicant's commitment to operating the premises responsibly, and noted the investment in soundproofing and the agreement to limit late-night opening to weekends.

Personal Licence - Proposal To Revoke

The Sub-Committee considered a proposal to revoke a personal licence following two relevant offences² under the Licensing Act 2003.

The police stated that the licence holder had two relevant convictions for drink driving, in 2016 and 2023. The Sub-Committee heard from the licence holder, who apologised for their offences and asked that their licence be suspended rather than revoked. They explained the circumstances surrounding the two offences and said that losing their licence would have a significant financial impact on them.

The Sub-Committee decided to revoke the licence. They noted the seriousness of the offences and the failure to properly notify the Licensing Authority of the second conviction, and concluded that revocation was proportionate and necessary to uphold the licensing objectives.