Agenda and minutes

Councillor Marian Spall welcomed everyone to the meeting, asked members and officers to introduce themselves and outlined the procedures for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor Gantly.

Councillor Poole substituted for Councillor Gantly.

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.

None.

The order of business was as the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 September 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant.

The licensing officer reported that the noise conditions had been agreed with the applicant.  The applicant had circulated amendments to the application.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  He stated that the display space for alcohol would be limited to 10% of the store, off-sales had been removed from the application, there would be a maximum seating capacity for 15 patrons and there was a proposed reduction in hours Mondays to Saturdays from 11am to 7.30 pm and on Sundays from 11am to 6.30pm. The police reported that they had withdrawn their objection as a result of these amendments.

The local residents raised objections on cumulative impact grounds and considered that this application had not addressed the policy.  They welcomed the changes made to the application but considered that a balance should be made between residents and commercial interests.  They stated that were nine licensed premises between the Camden Head and The York PH. Tesco was a major off licence and was capable of serving the community.  They were concerned that they had not been consulted regarding the change of use in planning terms.  They considered that the applicant had not taken the interests of the residents into account and asked that the Sub-Committee consider the interests of the residents and refuse the application.

Councillor Poole considered that on sales, rather than off sales, may be a change of planning use and asked that the licensing officer refer this matter back to the planning team.

Peter Mayhew, representing the applicant, Anneka Williams, reported that this was not a bar or café, but a shop asking to sell a small amount of alcohol on the premises. Off sales had been removed from the application and alcohol would be limited to 10% of display space in the shop.  There would be no draught beer or cider sold at the premises.  Conditions were as tight as possible to ensure that a different type of business could not be run from the premises in the future without an application to vary the licence. He considered that the application would fall into the exception to the cumulative impact policy as, there would be a maximum of 15 people drinking alcohol with a meal, specialist beers would be sold so the price point would not attract street drinkers and hours were until 7.30 pm only.  He was not convinced that granting a licence would undermine the licensing objectives.

In response to questions, Mr Mayhew reported that it was not unusual for an application to be amended following submission.  It became clear that residents and the police were unhappy with the off sales element and this was therefore withdrawn. A small amount of on sales was the next best option for the applicant.  There were currently three staff available on weekends and two during the week. All staff would have full training. There would be CCTV and full staff training in place as outlined in the papers.  There would be more measures in place than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The licensing officer reported that the applicant had requested an adjournment on the afternoon of the meeting but had not given a reason for this.  The applicant was advised to request the adjournment in person at this late stage.  The applicant was not present at the meeting.

The Sub-Committee considered that there were no grounds for an adjournment.

RESOLVED

That the application be heard in the absence of the applicant.

The licensing officer reported that there had been an email exchange during the last 24 hours between the applicant, trading standards and the police.  The applicant had removed off sales from the application and the trading standards concerns had therefore been addressed.

The police officer stated that they were unclear about the type of venue this was intended to be and had asked the applicant for clarification.  Initially it was understood to be a restaurant/oyster bar but it was now shown to be a venue selling mainly hotdogs. 

The noise officer stated that there were major problems with anti-social behaviour in Old Street. The council already paid for additional street cleaning at the weekend and there was a concern that there was no toilet indicated on the plans. 

The Sub-Committee considered that this was an unsatisfactory application.

RESOLVED

That the application for the new premises licence at Disco Dog, Old Street Station, EC1 be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant and the legal representative were not in attendance at the meeting. An email had been sent to the licensing team in the afternoon requesting an adjournment. The applicant was advised to attend the meeting to make the request for an adjournment to the Sub-Committee.

The applicant did not provide any grounds for an adjournment and the Sub-Committee decided not to adjourn as it was not necessary to do so in the public interest.

The Sub-Committee received updated information from the licensing officer, the police and the environmental health team 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 applicant had indicated earlier in the day that off sales would be removed from the application.  Discussions with trading standards had led to them withdrawing their objection.  The police referred to discussions during the day and that there was confusion as to whether the venue was to be a restaurant or bar. The environmental health officer raised concerns about major anti-social behaviour at Old Street and the problem with public urination which had not been addressed by the applicant in the operating schedule. The officer stated that the plans show 60 covers in the restaurant but no provision of a toilet within the premises.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had failed to produce a detailed operating schedule in accordance with licensing policy 9 and there was insufficient information before the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing policy 2.  The premises fall under the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.