Agenda and minutes

Councillor Satnam Gill welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gary Poole.

Councillor Gill substituted for Councillor Poole.

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 Ngongo declared that she was the ward councillor for Hillrise ward.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the applicant had tabled a summary of his application and stated that residents had received a copy.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The residents stated that this area was very residential and was very quiet and said that the applicant had stated that he was building a community venture but he had not consulted residents. A resident asked the applicant when the premises would be opening, the capacity of the premises and asked about the business model proposed. Another resident raised concerns about the management of people leaving the venue and was also concerned about people standing outside smoking, drinking and talking.  The resident considered that an extension to the licence downstairs would add to the number of people in the venue.

The applicant stated that the premises held 66 people upstairs.  It was proposed that, by moving the kitchen upstairs the first floor would hold 35 patrons upstairs and the remainder would be downstairs.  There was no proposal to increase capacity. The applicant stated that there was a current 24 hour licence which offered little protection to residents. This was an application for a variation with conditions and if the application was refused, residents would be in a worse position than currently. Planning permission for residential units had been refused and a public house was the only permitted use for the premises. In response to resident concerns, it was proposed that hours be reduced, the garden space would be limited by hours of use and there would be a condition regarding the use of a noise consultant. There would be no underage drinking.  There had been no issues about the designated premises supervisor. The lack of parking in the area was not a licensing concern.  He stated that he would want good relations with residents to be maintained whatever the outcome of the application.

The licensing officer advised that the licence could not be used as a 24 hour licence as the layout of the premises had changed and there would need to be an application for this variation in any event.

In response to questions it was noted that contact details would be provided on posters at the premises, the garden would be closed at 9pm, the numbers of smokers would be limited and a member of staff would manage the outside area. This was a traditional public house and clientele would go downstairs to be more comfortable.  It was noted that the applicant’s business partners had run other premises.

In summary, the residents raised concerns about customers making noise leaving the premises.  It was noted that this was a conservation area and the sash windows were made of very thin glass that could not be changed.  There was a concern that the nature of the area had changed and it had now outgrown a pub.

The applicant stated that the designated premises supervisor had engaged residents through email and remained open to dialogue.  He would provide contact details on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

The licensing officer reported that additional evidence had been received from the premises licence holder which had been tabled and would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The trading standards officer reported that there were three main issues of concern namely the presence of alcohol thought to be non-duty paid, a breach of licensing conditions and an unsatisfactory level of engagement by management.  He had asked the licensee to provide invoices and some had been provided.  There had been no explanation why other invoices had not been.  Alcohol had been displayed at a very cheap price and the officer was not convinced that this was because it was a loss leader as there was no prominent advertising and it was on shelving at the rear of the premises.  He could not say whether or not the alcohol had been purchased illegally or through a cash and carry.  There was a slowness of management to rectify the breaches in conditions. If the licensee had engaged at an earlier stage a review may not have been required.  Management should be proactive.  The officer was encouraged by the proposals for training and the additional condition that a personal licensee be present on the premises at all times that alcohol was sold.  He considered that there be a short suspension of the licence and considered the addition of a super strength condition would be appropriate.

The police stated that they were fully supportive of the trading standards review and had agreed a more robust CCTV condition with the licensee.

The licensing authority also agreed that a short suspension was appropriate and noted that the training that was to be undertaken was to be held shortly.

The licensee’s representative stated that they considered that a 14 day suspension, with the addition of two conditions regarding CCTV and super strength beer and an additional one regarding the presence of a personal licence when alcohol was sold would be an appropriate and proportionate response. The licensee had accepted the failings of five months before and had worked hard to put things right with real success.  A state of the art stock system had been purchased.  The licensee had not purchased the stock and the member of staff who had done had now left the business. A test purchase had taken place in September which had been passed and the licensing objectives would be promoted in the future.

In response to questions it was noted that all staff would be attending council training by the 23 February 2017. A short suspension of 14 days would allow this training to be completed.

RESOLVED

1)       That the premises licence, in respect of Lodos Food Centre, 87-91 Old Street, London, EC1V 9JJ be suspended for a period of 14 days.

2)       That the licence also be modified to add the following additional conditions:-

·        CCTV shall be installed, operated and maintained, at all times that the premises is open for licensable activities, so as to comply with the following criteria:

The licensee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

The police officer reported that there had been three attempts to transfer the licence from September 2016 that they considered had been an attempt to evade enforcement action.  They had no evidence of a legitimate sale and there had been a lack of engagement from the applicant.  The police asked the applicant to explain their part in the premises previously and the circumstances of the sale.

The applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that proof of transferred money was provided in the tabled information which would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  He reported that there had been a significant improvement in the business since September 2016.  Details of compliance with conditions had been set out in the tabled papers.  It had been unfortunate that there had been a delay in this information however, the applicant was now taking the matter seriously and understood his obligations. 

In response to questions it was noted that Mr Ali Has was now divesting 100% of his interest in the premises.  Mr Khartel and Mr Zagrosi were purchasing the premises at Holland Walk. Mr Ali Has and Mr Zagrosi were both Directors of MHAK Management Ltd. Mr Khartel stated that they were both mainly cashiers in the business prior to the application for a transfer of the licence. Mr Khartel and Mr Zagrosi were purchasing a 15 year lease.  MHAK would be the freeholder. It was expected that the sale would take about 8 weeks to complete.

In response to questions it was noted that Mr Zagrosi was appointed as a Director on the 14^th November so that he could participate in the business.  The two previous applications for transfer had been withdrawn as they had been poorly prepared.  The police considered that the two late withdrawals of the transfer application had been a way of circumnavigating the review process.  It was noted that if the transfer was refused the premises would be sold. The applicant’s solicitor offered a condition that Mr Has would not be involved in the management of the business.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider the application.  Upon return, the solicitor representing MHAK Management clarified that Mr Zagrosi was a Director of MHAK Management London Ltd and not MHAK Management Ltd.  Mr Zagrosi was not a shareholder but was a Director in order that he could have an official role in the business.  It was confirmed that once the sale was completed, Mr Has would remove himself as Director and hand the company over to Mr Zagrosi.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence transfer to Mr Buluthan Kartal, in respect of Nisa Local, 89-91 Holland Walk, N19 3XU be granted.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee heard from the police that they had concerns that there was no evidence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

This item was withdrawn as the transfer application for Nisa Local (Item B3) was approved.

The licensing authority reported that the licensee was working at the premises when contraventions of the licence took place.  It was acknowledged that he was now taking steps to improve and it was considered he would benefit from training and a suspension where he could take a step back.  It was considered that a short suspension would be in order.

The police stated that the premises needed strong leadership and raised concerns that the licensee and his business partner were working in the premises when contraventions took place.  He recommended that Mr Has was not to be involved in the premises.

The trading standards officer stated that there had been a lack of engagement, including engagement from the new licensee.  He had not sought his advice or attended training sessions despite dates being advised. He considered that a suspension was appropriate to encourage engagement and also considered that further conditions be added to the licence. 

The licensee’s representative was concerned that if conditions were accepted there should not be a suspension of the licence as this had not been detailed in the representation from the trading standards officer.  He stated that there should only be modification of the licence as detailed at page 277 of the agenda.   He stated that the shareholder had not engaged but since September there had been a substantial improvement from the licensee and his business partner.  The previous owner would not be engaged in the business.  The Sub-Committee were reminded that it was the Licensing Authority who had applied for the review and the recommendations were detailed in the review.

RESOLVED

1)       That the premises licence, in respect of Nisa Local, 69-91 Holland Walk, N19 3XU be suspended for a period of five weeks.

2)       That the licence also be modified to add the following conditions:-

·        Mr Ali Has is not to be involved in or own the business.

·        After evidence of any legal non-compliance relevant to the promotion of the licensing objectives is found, the licensee shall attend a meeting, upon reasonable request, with appropriate responsible authorities at the Council offices or other suitable location. This condition does not require the licensee to any anything while under caution.

·        The licensee and designated premises supervisor will not unreasonably refuse to attend any low-cost training for off-licence managers put on by the Council.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee noted that the report was incorrect in that this was a licensing authority review and not a police review.

The Sub-Committee heard from the licensing authority that the licensee was working at the premises when there were clear contraventions of the licence, in particular in relation to underage sales and illicit alcohol on the premises. The licensing authority stated that although the licensee was taking steps it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.