Agenda and minutes

Councillor Andrews welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked members and officers to introduce themselves.

None.

None.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

Councillor Andrews stated he was the ward councillor for Item B2 but had not discussed this item with either party.

The order of business was as the agenda.

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 27 August 2015 be confirmed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the licensee’s representative wished to introduce some photographs of the premises.  There was no objection from trading standards or the police for the photographs to be shown.  The pictures had been taken approximately two to three weeks after the knife sales.  The photographs were passed to members of the Sub-Committee.

The police officer reported that this review had been brought following an underage sale of knives.  This was the fourth review of this particular premises, reviews being held in 2006, 2011 and 2012.  It was the duty of the retailer to show due diligence.  A visit was made to the premises in June 2014 and it was noted that the refusals log was not signed by the designated premises supervisor and there was an issue with the CCTV.  At a further visit in July 2015, Salman Capti was unable to produce his personal licence or the premises licence. There was CCTV but the police had not been consulted about its position.  He reported that these could be considered minor breaches but they led to something greater.  Gang members looked for a weakness in shopkeepers.  An underage knife sale was made without challenge and in view of the seriousness he asked that the Sub-Committee consider revocation of the licence.

The licensing authority fully supported the police review.  There was a history of poor management and conditions had been breached numerous times.  The premises could not be managed without undermining the licensing objectives and the licensing authority considered that the licence should be revoked.

The trading standards officer reported that the premises had a chequered history.  After an application was made for a review in 2012 the current licensee assumed responsibility and started positively so a recommendation was made at the review for a suspension of the licence rather than revocation.  It was made clear to the licensee that a very high standard should be shown in the future.  Two test purchases in 2013 had been refused and there had been no sale of illicit goods since 2011.  The sale of knives had been made following a failure to follow advice.  If advice had been followed the sale was less likely to have been made.  There had been two further test purchases since the knife sale and these had been refused.  Umat Capti had signed an undertaking that the shop would no longer sell knives. The CCTV had not been checked by the police. He considered that there was no realistic chance of a high standard of management in the future and asked the Sub-Committee to consider revocation or a lengthy suspension of the licence.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee it was reported that the trading standards officer was not aware the premises was selling knives.  An advice letter had been given to the Capti’s other shop across the road and this had been responded to and places booked on a training course.

The licensee’s representative reported that Salman Capti was 25 years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The licensing officer reported that the application had been amended.  The licence was only required to the 19 December 2015 and hours were reduced on Wednesdays and Thursdays until midnight and Friday and Saturdays until 1 am. Representations on pages 61 and 68 of the agenda had been withdrawn.

The licensing authority stated that they were concerned regarding the contravention of licensing conditions.  Noise from smokers had been reported at the rear of the premises which had disturbed residents.  The TENs allowance for the year had been exceeded.  Planning permission had been granted to 23:00 hours and it was considered that those hours had been granted for good reason.

The applicant reported that the arts charity worked with property developers where premises were empty to make a positive use of the space.  The premises held ticketed events currently running a dining experience, a roadhouse bar and a cabaret performance.  The sale of alcohol was ancillary.  There was a maximum of 40 people each sitting and they wished to extend hours by half an hour to run an additional sitting on a Saturday to respond to the popularity of the event.  They would be happy to apply for retrospective planning permission.  It was reported that at a licensing inspection the licence had not been available.  The Sub-Committee noted that the audience manager was sick and the staff covering were not aware of where the licence was kept.  People had been outside the premises at the rear but they were from a party and not patrons.  Issues had been quickly rectified.  There were mainly two residents who complained about the noise, one had now withdrawn their objection and they were working hard to communicate with the second resident.  Very few noise complaints were directly related to this premises.

In response to questions it was noted that the current event had commenced on the 28 August and was to run on the 21 November 2015.  They had hoped to vary the licence but did not get the notice in the press so used temporary event notices.  They had miscalculated and applied for too many.  They wished to keep the licence until 19 December 2015 as they would like to extend the run if the tickets were selling well.  They had not applied for planning permission.  This was an administrative error. They would have to make refunds if they could not hold all performances.  Improvisation training was held on the first floor which was close to some residents.  They had tried to mitigate the noise and had blacked out the window.  Staff passed through the fire exit at the rear and complaints were received.  These staff had been dismissed.  They received few complaints considering the amount of activity in the building and these were mainly from two residents.  Piano works was open until 4am.  The current event had not caused the previous issues.  It was accepted that the licensing inspection was not their finest hour. The fire service had given an exemplary report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The licensing officer reported that the local authority had withdrawn their representations as conditions had been agreed with the applicant.  Revised police conditions were tabled and would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

Councillor Nicholls, ward councillor, raised concerns regarding the on and off sales in the cumulative impact zone and the anti-social behaviour in the area  There was no evidence that this premises would not add to the cumulative impact.  He raised concerns about the patrons drinking outside and the starting hours, which would allow 12 hours of drinking. He considered that, if the licence was granted, drinking be inside only, alcohol be ancillary to food and there be conditions applied regarding waste disposal.

The applicants stated they had been running a delicatessen in Camden and had received no complaints.  They recognised that this area was different and was a saturation area.  They had held extensive discussions with the police and as a result conditions had been agreed with them.  They would be selling fine wines and craft beers and would not be selling cheap alcohol.  The outside space had previously been used as a public lavatory.  They had replanted the area and added lighting and the anti-social behaviour had disappeared in a month.  They ran wine tastings and courses and sold artisan cheeses.  The area was jet washed each day.  This was an exciting place to be.  The applicant had a petition in support of the shop with 300 signatures. It was hoped to attract other good businesses and they wished to remain in the area.

In response to questions it was noted that they needed the area outside to attract custom.  They served food but were not a restaurant.  Conditions had been agreed.  There would be no vertical drinking. There was capacity for about 35/40 people inside and the same number outside.  They did not envisage selling much alcohol before midday. 

In summary, the ward councillor considered that off sales were not appropriate for the area and he was concerned about the number of customers outside the premises in an area where there was a high level of anti-social behaviour. 

The applicants stated that they supported the principle behind the cumulative impact policy but did not have an outlet that offered cheap booze.   They required the outside tables as the premises were not very visible and these would let people know that they were there. 

RESOLVED

a) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Forks and Corks, 2-3 Archway Mall, N19 5RG be granted to permit:-

i)       The exhibition of films from 18:00 to 21:00 on Mondays

ii)      Live music from 19:00 to 22:00 Thursday to Saturday.

iii)    The sale of alcohol, on and off supplies from 10:00 until 22:00 Monday to Sunday.

iv)    To allow opening hours from 07:30 until 23:00 Monday to Saturday from 08:00 until 22:00 on Sunday.

b) Conditions detailed below shall be applied to the licence.

1.               The premises will not operate any irresponsible alcohol promotions.

2.               The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.