Agenda and minutes

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

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of substitute members.

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.

Item B1. Shell Service Station, 276 Upper Street, London, N1 2TZ had been withdrawn from the agenda. The order of business would be B2, B3 and B4.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The licensing officer stated that a copy of the applicant’s business plan and a letter had been sent to the sub-committee and interested parties.

Two residents were in attendance and stated that they were not aware of any premises in the area with outside seating until 10pm and they were concerned about potential broken bottles, the walkway being impeded and noise at closing time. Concern was raised about the density of local licensed premises and their impact, in particular the noise at closing time and litter left by smokers at the entrance to Leo’s Yard as well as smokers congregating outside one of the resident’s premises when it was raining due to there being shelter from the balcony above. One of the residents had a child that was regularly woken up by the noise of those leaving licensed premises on Great Sutton Street. Concern was raised that Le Cellar would become a quasi-nightclub/bar and that granting this licence would add to the congestion at the narrow and already congested junction of Great Sutton Street and St John’s Street.

The applicants stated that the premises had previously been licensed. The application hours were within the core hours and the premises would not become a late night venue. The premises was a fine dining restaurant and was not a pub. Wine would be sold as small measures only (125ml), there would be no drinks promotions and the premises had restricted the number of patrons to 39. There would be two tables outside with no more than six seats in total. The applicants did not want a restriction on alcohol only being served with food as they wanted to offer wine tastings.

One of the applicants had 15 years’ experience as a sommelier and the other had had been a health and safety manager. They stated that they both had a personal licence and there would be a licence holder on the premises at all times.

The applicants stated that in order to promote the licensing objectives, there would be CCTV inside and outside the premises, table service outside would reduce noise and staff would go outside as soon as someone sat down, the outside tables and chairs would be removed by 10pm, staff would be well managed, there would only be background music, patrons would be asked to leave quietly and a Challenge 25 policy would be operated.

In response to members’ questions, the applicants advised that a 125ml glass of wine would cost between £6 and £10, it was anticipated that those just having a drink would stay for approximately 30 minutes and those dining would spend approximately 2 hours in the premises. In addition, the outside tables and chairs would not be out in winter, there would be no awning or outdoor heaters, smokers would be reminded to be quiet and a sign asking them to be quiet outside would be placed on the door. The applicants stated that residents who experienced any issues, could contact them and they would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

The licensing officer advised that the applicant was not in attendance, no correspondence had been received to say that he could not attend and there was no representative in attendance. An interested party was in attendance to object to the application.

The Sub-Committee considered that there were matters arising from the papers that required clarification and therefore the item should be adjourned and the applicant should be requested to attend the sub-committee when the item was to be heard.

RESOLVED:

That the item be adjourned.

The licensing officer reported that an additional representation had been sent to the sub-committee and interested parties and that the applicant had accepted the Trading Standards conditions on page 196 of the agenda.

The licensing authority raised concerns that although the premises was in the Holloway/Finsbury Park Cumulative impact area, this was not referenced in the operating schedule and the terminal hour was in excess of the policy hours with no explanation given for this.

The licensing authority provided an update on visits officers had made to the premises on Thursday 8 and Friday 9 November 2018. On 8 November, the officers visited the premises to advise the applicant that the TEN he had applied for in relation to the following weekend had not been approved. Whilst there, the officers found that alcohol was being sold without a licence. The applicant was also advised he was not permitted to sell alcohol on 9, 10 and 11 November as the TEN had not been approved. Officers advised that he could allow patrons to bring their own alcohol.

The licensing authority advised that officers revisited the premises on 9 November and customers were drinking alcohol and there was a beer tap providing the brand of beer the customers were drinking. The applicant advised them that the customers had brought the alcohol with them but was unable to produce the empty containers when asked. Officers noticed the till had recorded sales of the alcohol and the applicant was unable to explain this. The sub-committee was provided with a photo of the till recording and this was shown to the applicant.

The licensing authority had previously considered that the application could be viable with the conditions proposed but since the visits, questioned the management of the premises and considered that no responsibility was being taken. Therefore the licensing authority now suggested that the application should be refused.

Two residents were in attendance and they raised concern about noise from the premises that could be heard in their homes above the premises. They had complained to the applicant a number of times and despite assurances that this would be rectified, it had not been. One resident had called the noise out of hours team several times and following a visit from the noise team during a belly dancing evening at the premises, the speakers in the ceiling were no longer used. However, there was still no sound insulation in the ceiling and music, people speaking and furniture being moved could all be heard in the resident’s home. The resident raised concern about the applicant being untrustworthy and requested that the soundproofing that had been removed by the previous owners should be reinstated and approved by an independent expert.

The applicant stated that he had not made any changes to the ceiling or speaker system since buying the premises a year ago. He believed the premises had a licence when he bought it and raised concern that he had not been advised it had not at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.