You are here: Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 4, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD

Contact: Jackie Tunstall  020 7527 3068

No. Item


Introductions and procedure


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


Apologies for absence


There were no apologies for absence.


Declarations of substitute members


There were no declarations of substitute members.


Declarations of interest

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.


Order of Business


The order of business would be as the agenda.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 155 KB



That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.


Nomad, 58 Old Street, EC1V 9AJ - Premises licence review pdf icon PDF 5 MB


The Sub-Committee noted the tabled papers forwarded by Wenlake Management and also those submitted by the licensee’s representative.


The noise team reported that the review had been submitted following repeated non-compliance with conditions by the licensee. Complaints from residents had been received since January 2011.  The sound levels were discussed with the management of the premises and a calibration certificate was requested.  In April 2011 a calibration certificate was received but this did not include all information that was required and was rejected.  No response was received.  Warning letters were sent in December 2012 and reminders in January and February 2013 but no response was received.  It was made clear to the acoustic consultant for Nomad that the noise levels were greater than the levels on the licence and that a variation would need to be applied for should they require the levels to be varied. They were also reminded that a calibration certificate needed to be submitted. The acoustic consultant did not acknowledge the licence conditions and did not detail any sound insulation works that had been carried out.  In March 2013, the acoustic consultant informed the noise team that the noise levels were acceptable.  However these levels were in excess of the condition on the licence.  He was advised that if the sound levels were to be increased, a variation of the licence would need to be applied for.  The acoustic consultant wrote in June disagreeing with the conditions and in response to this letter he was asked to vary the licence.  In September 2016 a calibration certificate was requested and again in January 2017.  The licensee and his representative attended an officer panel in November 2016 and they advised that a certificate would be submitted.  A certificate was received on the 2 May 2017, on the day of the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting, and levels were in excess of the noise level condition by a large amount.   The applicant had been advised on at least four occasions to apply for a variation, complaints were still being received from residents and there was a lack of responsibility from the licensee. The noise team had been forced to submit a review of the licence due to non-compliance.


The police officer reported that he had read the review and was in agreement with it. He had been present at the officer panel in November and agreements had been made regarding CCTV and serious assault conditions but no variation had been submitted following the panel meeting. He considered that management of the premises did not reach the high standards required.  The licensee talked about making changes but then did not act. 


The licensing authority stated that at the officer panel the licensee had agreed to submit a minor variation and to submit an acoustic survey.  Complaints had still been received and there had been no contact from the licensee since the review except in the two days prior to the review hearing.  It was suggested that there be a suspension of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.


Crouch Hill Supermarket, 60 Crouch Hill, N4 4AD - Premises licence review pdf icon PDF 756 KB


The licensing officer reported that conditions regarding CCTV proposed by the police were at page 177 of the agenda.


The police officer informed the Sub-Committee that there were a couple of typing errors in the report at page 176 and that the name Huseyin be replaced with Savvas in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report. The police officer reported that the owner’s son was seen handling stolen alcohol. Police noticed a person entering the premises will a full bag and leave the premises with an empty bag.  CCTV showed that Savvas Boybeyi handed cash to Mr Onay who in turn handed it to the person. Mr Savvas Boybeyi admitted the offence and signed a community resolution.  The police reported that they were not happy with the management of the premises and were fairly sure that this would not have been the first time that this situation had happened.


The trading standards officer reported that Mr Boybeyi had attended an officer panel meeting following the seizure of illicit alcohol.  The licence could have been reviewed at this time.  In 2016 there were no suspect spirits or tobacco found on the premises that were suspect, however, there were beers with Polish-only labelling.  No invoices had been received for these beers as presumably none were available. This led him to believe that it was highly likely that these would be non-duty paid.  The manner in which the stolen goods were handled was routine and appeared to him to be acceptable business practice.  In these circumstances he recommended revocation. There was the issue of honesty and the move from illicit alcohol to stolen goods. He asked that, should the licence be suspended, conditions as detailed in his representation should be added to the licence.


The licensing authority agreed with revocation.  The licensee had failed to comply with conditions and offences had been committed.


The licensee’s representative stated that the designated premises supervisor (dps) had not been in the country when this incident had occurred due to a family tragedy.  He considered that the employees would behave in a different manner when he was away.  Police were at liberty to interview the dps but he had not been interviewed.  He stated that the dps had not been involved.  Any thoughts about his involvement were based on speculation. The dps was away when both breaches occurred. There had been four underage test purchases attempted, none of which resulted in sales.  There had been two visits since 2012, whilst the dps was away but he had provided invoices subsequently.  Drinks had been priced incorrectly but were legitimately sourced.  It was considered that it would not be proportionate or appropriate to remove the dps from the licence.  He accepted conditions 2 and 4 and advised that a suspension should not be imposed as a punishment but only to get things in order to act as a deterrent and to have time to reflect.  He agreed the conditions proposed by trading standards.  He reminded the Sub-Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.


Aya Supermarket, 599 Holloway Road, N19 4DJ - Application for new premises licence pdf icon PDF 805 KB


The police officer reported that the venue was in the cumulative impact area and there was nothing in the application to demonstrate why the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.


The licensing authority reported that there had been no engagement from the applicant.  The saturation zone had not been addressed in the application. The licensing authority was concerned about street drinking in the area and asked that if the Sub-Committee were to grant the licence there should be a start time of 10am with the conditions proposed.  However, this was a heavily saturated area and there was no need for another licence in the area.


The applicant’s representative stated that as stated in the licensing policy at paragraph 4, each application would be on its merits and in paragraph 6, an exception would be a small premises with a capacity of fifty persons or less.  Conditions as proposed were all accepted and a later start time of 10am was also be agreed.  This application was consistent with licensing policy 8 regarding hours and the applicant was not seeking to go beyond this time.  He stated that an extensive operating schedule had been submitted.  The premises would not impact negatively with the operating schedule conditions and hours proposed.


In response to questions it was noted that there were 12 other licensed premises within a 200m radius.  The premises was currently operating on an unlicensed basis.  It was noted that this ward had the highest number of off licences in the Borough and the premises was not expected to be any different to others in the area.  It was noted that super strength beers would not be sold and the applicant offered a condition that no ciders would be sold.


In summary, the police stated that they had not heard anything about the venue that would be considered an exception.  The venue could not fail to impact on the area and considered that the application be refused.

The licensing authority agreed with the police and considered that they had not heard anything different about his premises. For a small premises to be considered exceptional they should not be alcohol led.

The applicant’s representative stated that the premises was currently trading as a community store so alcohol would be ancillary to the business. He stated that the operating schedule was comprehensive and all licensing objectives would be promoted.  He considered that the licence would not impact negatively on the area should it be granted.



That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Aya Supermarket, 599 Holloway Road, N19 4DJ be refused.



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 Park cumulative impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.