The Licensing Sub-Committee of Enfield Council met on Wednesday 15 July 2026 to consider an application for a new premises licence for Union Bar & Restaurant. The meeting's agenda focused solely on this application, with no other substantive items scheduled for discussion.

Application for a New Premises Licence at Union Bar & Restaurant

The primary item scheduled for discussion was an application for a new premises licence for Union Bar & Restaurant, located at 56 Aldermans Hill, London, N13 4PP. The report pack detailed the history of the premises, noting that a previous licence (LN/202400475) had been granted on 2 December 2024 but was subsequently revoked on 11 February 2026 due to breaches of licence conditions, including violations of the Health Act 2006 concerning smoking in enclosed areas. The previous licence holder was Union Bar & Restaurant Ltd, with Mr Armando Roci as the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The new application was submitted by Ms Elsa Budani, who was also the proposed DPS.

The application sought to permit the following licensable hours and activities:

• Opening hours: Monday to Sunday, 06:00 to 22:00.
• Supply of Alcohol (on-premises): Initially sought from Monday to Sunday, 10:00 to 22:00, but agreed to be modified to Monday to Sunday, 10:00 to 21:30 following mediation with Licensing Enforcement.
• Supply of Alcohol (off-premises): Monday to Sunday, 10:00 to 22:00.

The premises had undergone refurbishment, including the removal of a recessed frontage area. The application was situated within the Palmers Green Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), an area designated by the London Borough of Enfield's Licensing Policy Statement¹ due to existing concerns about crime and disorder, public nuisance, and public safety arising from a concentration of licensed premises.

Representations were received from ten Other Parties (OP1 to OP10), objecting to the application on grounds related to all four licensing objectives. These objections highlighted the premises' previous licence revocation, concerns about continuity of management, and the potential for reintroducing past issues of disorder, nuisance, and public safety concerns. Specific concerns included antisocial behaviour, intimidation, congregation in the locality, noise, late-night disturbance, smoking in inappropriate areas, obstruction of the highway, and the impact on children and families.

Licensing Enforcement had initially made representations but withdrew them after the applicant agreed to proposed conditions and amended timings. These agreed conditions, detailed in Annex 4 of the public reports pack², covered various aspects including:

• Prohibiting adult entertainment and ensuring no activities would give rise to concern regarding children.
• A condition that Mr Armando Roci would not be involved in the operation or management of the business.
• No live music.
• Restrictions on alcohol being taken outside the premises.
• Limits on the number of people smoking outside and requirements for supervision.
• Prominent notices requesting customers to leave quietly and respect residents.
• Active discouragement of patrons congregating outside.
• Requirements for keeping the pavement clean and free from litter.
• A zero-tolerance policy to drugs, with prominent notices displayed.
• Staff training on the licensing objectives, sale of alcohol, Challenge 25, and conflict management.
• Operation of a 'Challenge 25' proof of age scheme and a record of refused sales.
• Conditions for children on the premises after 19:30, requiring them to be consuming a substantial table meal.
• Requirements for the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) or a nominated personal licence holder to be contactable.
• Mandatory operation as a restaurant, with customers seated at tables, serving substantial table meals, and alcohol consumption ancillary to meals. No vertical drinking was permitted.
• Service of alcohol by waiter/waitress only to seated patrons having or intending to have a substantial meal.
• Off-sales to be in sealed containers and ancillary to a take-away meal.
• Installation and maintenance of a comprehensive CCTV system meeting police requirements, with recordings stored for at least 31 days and made available to authorities.
• An incident log to record crimes, ejections, complaints, disorder, seizures, CCTV faults, and visits by authorities.
• Procedures for reporting and addressing harassment or safety concerns.
• Facilitation of access to safe transport options.

The report pack also outlined the relevant legal framework, including the Licensing Act 2003 and statutory guidance, and the specific policy of the London Borough of Enfield regarding Cumulative Impact Zones. The key question for the Sub-Committee was whether the applicant had demonstrated that granting the licence would not add to the existing cumulative impact in the Palmers Green CIZ and would promote the licensing objectives, taking into account the premises' recent history.

The report pack included representations from various parties, including Councillor Chris James (Palmers Green ward), who cited the previous revocation and concerns about antisocial behaviour, public nuisance, and public safety. The Green Lanes Business Association (GLBA) also submitted a representation, expressing concerns about the prevention of crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety, and the cumulative impact on the town centre environment, noting that Palmers Green was not suffering from a shortage of licensed premises. Multiple other representations from local residents echoed these concerns, emphasizing the history of non-compliance, the impact on the residential community, and the potential for a repeat of previous issues.