Agenda and minutes

Councillor Alex Diner 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 Diarmaid Ward.

Councillor Gary Poole substituted for Councillor Aysegul Erdogan for Item B3 and Councillor Flora Williamson substituted for Councillor Diarmaid Ward for the meeting.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be Item B3, B1 and B4.  It was noted that Item B2 had been agreed by all parties and had been withdrawn.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that this item had been deferred from the 1 June.  New conditions 27- 29 had been agreed with the acoustic officer since the report had been published. The police had agreed the hours and conditions.  The noise officer had concerns regarding the acoustic report. and had asked that it be disregarded.

The noise officer reported that, where there was perceived to be a risk of homophobic hate crime, the licensee would need to manage that risk.

The licensing authority stated that there had been engagement prior to the application.  The applicant had stated that they would apply for core hours but when the application was submitted the hours applied for were later hours.  The applicant had met with the residents.  The authority considered that this was a bar and not a nightclub and did not consider that core hours for a nightclub would be appropriate.  The other premises the applicant had in the West End was operated until midnight. The authority was not opposed to the grant of a licence but the hours would need to be reduced.

In response to questions it was reported that, at the residents meeting, the applicant stated that they wanted nightclub hours.  The licensing authority did not consider that the cumulative impact of these hours had been dealt with in the application.  The licensing authority did not consider a social club was the same as a nightclub and did not consider that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of the cumulative impact policy in relation to hours.

The public health authority informed the Sub-Committee that 43% of ambulance related ambulance call outs in the area occurred after 11pm.  This was a cumulative impact area and within a 250m radius of the premises there were 32 alcohol-related callouts between January and December 2016.  They were concerned about the late night impact of this premises in a cumulative impact area.

In response to a question to the public health authority it was noted that they were concerned regarding an 11pm cut off hour based on the collected public health data.

Two local residents and Councillor Gary Poole spoke against the application.  Councillor Poole reported that the applicant had not recognised the cumulative impact policy.  He stated that the proposal for a LGBT club was a smokescreen.  There was no exception to the cumulative impact policy with regard to this premises.  Good management and another premises elsewhere was not a consideration under the policy.  This was a nightclub application and the premises would be adding to the impact in the area.  One resident reported that they had not objected because of the previous problems with the premises or because they wanted to harm nightlife but considered that there needed to be a balance with the needs of residents.  Even though the previous club had closed, residents were still routinely woken up by pub goers and people in cars with loud music. No noise report could indicate this noise.  The premises would have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

The Sub-Committee noted that Item B2 had been withdrawn from the agenda as conditions had been agreed with the interested parties.

The licensing officer reported that the representation on page 239 of the agenda had been withdrawn and the remaining objector had submitted a further representation.

The applicant stated that the application was for a restaurant which was under 50 covers and was restricted with core hours to be policy compliant.  There would be restaurant conditions on the licence. He stated that it would be a quality establishment which was a café in the morning and sold pizza/pasta from lunchtime.  He hoped to bring trade to a depressed area and he had no complaints with his other restaurant.  He would not bring the same noise problems as the nearby public house mentioned in the objection.  He had agreed detailed conditions with the noise team and proposed a limit of six smokers outside the premises although he reported that smokers may move down the road and out of control of the premises. He hoped to bring trade to the area. 

In response to questions it was noted that that patrons would normally leave earlier than midnight.  The kitchen would shut at 10.30pm and the premises would normally close at 11pm.  There may be a couple of tables that would stay later. There would be some takeaway business.  They may use a delivery service but not for their core time.  Deliveries would mainly be by cycle so there would be no obstruction and no queues.  There was not expected to be a large number for the take away service.  There would be no alcohol included with the take away service. 

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Café Tropical, 240 Hornsey Road, N7 7LL, be granted to allow:-

a)     The supply of alcohol, for consumption on the premises from 10 am until 11 pm Sunday to Thursday and from 10 am until midnight Friday and Saturday.

b)     The provision of recorded music from 10 am until 11pm on Sunday to Thursday and from 10am until midnight Friday and Saturday.

c)     The provision of late night refreshment from 11pm to midnight on Friday and Saturday.

2)       That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on pages 243 and 244 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the following addition:-

·        That there be a limit of 6 patrons smoking outside the premises.

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 took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Parkcumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

The licensing officer reported that there had been no response to the email sent to the objector from the applicant

The applicant’s representative stated that this was a coffee shop/bakery  with other branches in North London.  The application had two resident representations, one in support. The objector raised concerns about anti-social behaviour but it was not considered that this premises would cause problems.  Conditions had been agreed.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Yasar Halim, 167 Fairbridge Road, N19 3HS, be granted to allow:-

a)    The supply of alcohol, for consumption on the premises from 11 am until 9.30 pm Monday to Sunday.

b)    Opening hours to be:- 6am to 10pm Monday to Sunday.

2)     That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on pages 267 and 268  of the agenda be applied to the licence.

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.

One local resident objection had been received and one resident wrote in support of the application.  There had been representations from the police and noise team and conditions had been agreed.

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensing officer had forwarded, on behalf of the applicant, an email to the objector but that there had been no response. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the premises were a coffee shop and patisserie. The premises were run by a well-known and established firm with a number of bakeries in north London.   The applicant had noted the objector’s concerns regarding possible noise and anti-social behaviour but did not believe that the premises would cause problems and had agreed conditions.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the grant of the licence with the agreed conditions would promote the licensing objectives. Comprehensive conditions had been agreed with the police and noise team and the hours sought and nature of the business was such that the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the grant of the licence was appropriate and proportionate.