Agenda and minutes

Councillor Diner welcomed everyone to the meeting, asked members and officers to introduce themselves and outlined the procedure for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Erdogan and Khan.

Councillor D Ward substituted for Councillor Erdogan.

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 on the 17 May 2016 be confirmed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the hours applied for late night refreshment were in excess of those permitted under planning permission.

The police reported that the applicant had accepted a CCTV condition but had refused to amend the hours applied for.  The premises were in the Angel cumulative impact area which was significant regarding its late night economy.  Matters had not improved and this area was a hotspot for anti-social behaviour.  It had been necessary to employ late night patrols in the area.  Another licence granted would exacerbate the problems that the police were trying to control.

In response to questions, it was noted that this particular stretch of road was the busiest part in Upper Street for anti-social behaviour.  The late night levy team patrolled this area because of the problems.  The police considered that this would be another late night venue which would encourage customers to remain in the area rather than to go home.

The licensing authority was unable to attend the meeting.  The licensing officer read out a statement from the licensing authority.  He reported that their representation was on page 27 of the agenda.  The licensing authority had received no further information to change their recommendation.  Licensed premises paid a late night levy to minimise the impacts of premises and the licensing policy provided guidelines on how to frame applications. The applicant had not reported on the arrangements for customers not to cause nuisance.  A late night venue would encourage more people to remain in the area.  The recommendation of the licensing authority was to refuse the application unless the applicant could convince the Sub-Committee that there would be no impact and the authority requested that, should the licence be granted, the hours remain within the licensing policy guidelines.

The applicant’s agent stated that the applicant had owned a neighbouring restaurant for seven years.  Two other premises nearby were open until 2 am.  The owner had invested in the premises and he had not known that the cumulative impact policy restricted the hours to midnight and 1am.  The owner needed his business to be viable and on a similar footing to other premises. The applicant offered a condition for a door supervisor.  His client was not serving alcohol.  There were other premises that closed at 3am and his business would not hold people in the area. An SIA door supervisor would be on the premises from 11pm until close on Friday and Saturday.  There had been no issues with the neighbouring premises that the applicant owned during the last seven years.  He had assisted with police investigations with the use of his CCTV.  He was flanked by bars and he was not able to control these customers, although a door supervisor would vet customers and would help move people on.  Sufficient signage would be erected.  The entrance to apartments would be roped off to prevent anti-social behaviour in the alley way.  There had been five TENs until 3am and there had been no incidents, an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

The licensing officer reported that the representation from the Licensing Authority had been withdrawn after planning concerns had been satisfied.  Conditions from the police had been tabled and these were agreed by the applicant. Further proposed conditions and photos of the outside area were tabled by the applicant.  These papers would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

 A local resident reported that there were two other bars in the area with outside areas.  These created noise disturbance already and another bar would add to the noise and the applicant may ask to increase the hours at a later date. There was already a saturation of bars in the area, nine within 60 or 70 metres.  Drinkers moved from one bar to another.  The applicant had submitted vague proposals.  The premises did not have a kitchen but the applicant stated it was a restaurant.  There was no side entrance for the collection of bottles so would be collected via the front door.  There was an internet café in the basement which those under 18 would use in a premises that sold alcohol.  This was a residential area and customers would cause public nuisance moving from one bar to another.

The applicant’s agent appreciated the difficulties the resident described but stated that his client could not be held responsible for other premises.  Granting this licence was not going to add to the cumulative impact.  This was not a bar but a restaurant.  Tabled conditions were restaurant conditions and stated that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to a substantial table meal.  They had submitted an application for a certificate of lawfulness which the planning team accepted.  The premises were moving from a café to a fully functioning restaurant.  The representations referred to a bar.  This would be a restaurant with restaurant conditions. 

In response to questions it was noted that lasagne and salad were examples of meals that were sold at the moment.  It was noted that it was an oversight not to submit a kitchen plan.  The kitchen area would be downstairs.  They did not cook food from fresh.  The agent stated that the licence could be subject to the submission of a kitchen plan and alcohol would be served with a substantial meal e.g lasagne, spaghetti bolognaise.  He applicant stated that there would be 18 tables inside and 12 outside.  There would be two people at each table, making 36 people inside and 24 outside.  

In summary, the police raised concerns regarding the number of personal licence holders on the premises as the hours requested indicated a long shift pattern.  Additional conditions were received only recently and there would be a noise nuisance from people outside eating.  The noise level increased when food was served with alcohol.

The agent stated that he appreciated that voices did carry but considered that 10.30pm was not too late.  The terrace could be closed if it caused a nuisance.  The premises would not be using the side alley.  The licensing authority had withdrawn  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The licensing officer reported that a police representation had been withdrawn following conditions agreed with the applicant.  The premises were not in a cumulative impact area.

It was noted that the incorrect plan of the premises had been included in the agenda and a correct plan had been circulated to members.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers. The applicant had been running the premises for 15 months and there had been no adverse incidents.  The shop was now becoming a Nisa and if the sale went ahead there would be dedicated staff to the shop.  This was a long term investment and was a local shop for local people.  This was a high end one stop shop where customers would be able to purchase alcohol alongside bread and milk. Hours requested were within framework hours.  The applicant had agreed an Emirates condition with the police.  The applicant was determined to make the shop work and agreed to have additional conditions regarding the strength of alcohol if required.  Staff undertook a comprehensive training programme.  The applicant ran the shop opposite and had recently passed an underage test purchase. There had been no representation from the police.  There was no evidence of litter outside the premises and the applicant did regularly sweep outside.  There was a list of robust conditions, the application was in framework hours and the resident who had objected was not in attendance .Two residents spoke in support of the application.  They stated that the applicant was very friendly, was focussed on organic food, was very convenient and provided a variety of services that were missing from the area.

RESOLVED

1) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Caledonian Supermarket, 288 Caledonian Road, London, N1 1BA be granted:-

a) To permit the sale of alcohol, off supplies, Monday to Sunday from 8am until 10.30 pm.

b) Opening hours to be from 8am until 10.30 pm. 

2) Conditions as on pages 111 and 112 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material.

Conditions had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police. No other responsible authorities submitted any representations.

The premises were not located within a cumulative impact area.

Licensing Policy 8 provides that when dealing with new and variation applications, the Licensing Authority would give more favourable consideration to applications with terminal hours of 11pm Sunday to Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday.

The application in question was for permission to sell alcohol in a grocery store between the hours of 8am to 22.30, Monday to Sunday.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the granting of the application with the agreed conditions would promote the four licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee considered it proportionate and reasonable to grant the licence subject to the agreed conditions.