Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Weekes, Croft and Shaikh.

Councillor Staff substituted for Councillor Weekes, Councillor Jeapes substituted for Councillor Shaikh and Councillor Ibrahim substituted for Councillor Croft.

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 B4, B1, B2 and B3.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2024 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that conditions proposed by the police and noise team had been agreed. It would be sensible to remove the current conditions 5 and 7 which were existing under the original magistrate’s licence. The police and licensing authority representation remained.

The police reported that this application was outside framework hours and they were not able to condition to cover a business operation outside these hours. The conditions offered would satisfy framework hours only. The Licensing Authority stated that no additional conditions or details of how they would operate outside these hours had been offered by the applicant. The applicant had stated it was a restaurant and bar. Policy hours would be up until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. 

In response to questions, it was noted that no conditions had been initially offered by the applicant until discussions had taken place with the police.  Police would support framework hours, but any extension of hours would need to be properly managed. The applicant had operated under a series of TENs but that would be a different prospect to a permanent extension of hours.

The applicant’s representative stated that this application was to extend hours for late night refreshment and the sale of alcohol. They had met with the police and agreed a number of conditions. 70 Upper Street had a number of conditions, and this premises operated to similar hours proposed. There had been no specific links to the premises of crime and disorder. The operator had been running similar businesses for twenty years and knew the area very well. He had operated a business at the same site.

In response to questions, it was noted that temporary event notices had been applied for with one operating the previous weekend which was for two parties. Patrons could leave by cab. It was noted that since Covid, business had decreased with many local businesses closing. The additional hours requested would help to pay staff, rent and rates. The business was quiet Monday to Wednesday but busier over the weekend. There would be no external promoted events, and this would be conditioned. A condition regarding door supervisors was proposed by risk assessment. The sale of alcohol was ancillary, and this was not a bar. There were 120 covers for food in a good location and this was not a walk-in bar. Patrons would have to buy food until 2.30 am as this was a restaurant. There would be staff/security on the door and 16 CCTV cameras. Waste collections were made from the rear of the premises. It was noted that the licensee had proposed a condition stating that waste collections could be from 8am to 8pm but had agreed to a noise team condition for collections up until 11pm. They stated that they were concerned about noise late at night.  The licensees’ representative stated that there had been no history of incidents linked with the premises and the police conditions had been accepted. This was not an alcohol led business. They  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

The licensing officer reported that the hours had been amended following consultation with the police. The police representation had therefore been withdrawn.  There were three outstanding residential representations.

A local resident reported that she objected to this licence based on two licensing objectives, the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. There had been noise disturbance from the extractor fan for many years, both before and after the current applicant had started trading. She had texted a previous owner when there was a problem, and they would switch off the fan and staff would leave. When he had left the business, co-operation ceased, and a Section 18 had been served on the premises but then the business had closed. There was a period of silence during this time but when the new owner opened the premises the noise began again.  When speaking to the owner he had been dismissive and asked the resident to deal directly with the landlord. Her partner had also spoken to the applicant. The Council had witnessed this nuisance and confirmed a section 18 noise abatement notice. This was breached in July and a fixed penalty notice had been issued.  The landlord stated that a hood would be placed over the fan. This work had been carried out; the noise level had improved slightly but persisted.  The fan was switched off at 11pm and she had come to terms with the noise, but she struggled with sleep with the current hours of operation.  An officer had attended from the anti-social behaviour team and had said that this could potentially be a statutory noise nuisance in the warmer months. Other neighbours were also unhappy about the noise. Regarding crime and disorder, she stated that they lived on a quiet street and patrons were drug taking and dealing outside.

In response to questions, the resident stated that the issue persisted even when there had been a good relationship with the occupier. A statutory notice had been served but then the occupiers had left the premises so there had been no engagement around solutions. Following a further notice a hood had been put over the extractor fan but still the problem continued. The solution was a technical issue.

The applicant stated that the premises had been closed for a year and he had taken over in April 2023. He had met the resident before he had commenced trading. Residents in the flats had complained and he hired an acoustic engineer. Two fans had been reduced to one.  They closed the premises at 10.45 to allow for the extraction to end at 11pm. The engineer had suggested an acoustic housing and once work was completed the immediate neighbours were ok with the noise levels. They had carried out all possible work to the extractor. All local businesses were closing and businesses needed to trade when there was high demand. His premises were on Holloway Road had nothing to do with drug dealing. He had been informed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

RESOLVED that this item be deferred to a future meeting as the applicant was not in attendance.

The licensing officer reported that conditions detailed in Appendix 3 had been agreed. There was one resident present at the meeting.

The local resident spoke against the application. She stated that, although she had always supported regeneration, there had been in increase in the late night openings of nightclubs and bars.  Cowcross Yard was a dark yard where some people gathered. There was loud music and aggressive behaviour. She did not see anything in the application regarding safety and avoiding public nuisance. There was a risk that people would gather in the yard and patrons from the premises would flood out onto the street.  The entrance into Cowcross Yard was not lit and she considered that patrons would continue onto after parties with shouting and loud music. She considered that CCTV and lighting at the rear of the premises would help avoid issues. She also asked that delivery vehicles turn their van engines off on the Cowcross Yard side.

In response to questions, it was noted that there had not been much interaction with the applicant as there had been scaffolding outside the property. There had been squatters in the premises and basement parties had been held so residents were concerned. The music from Fabric was loud. Patrons sat in the seated area. Community policing would help the situation.

The applicant’s representative stated that they wanted to make the area better and invested in the restaurant. CCTV and lighting at the rear was agreed, although they had some concerns regarding other residents thoughts regarding the lighting. He stated that the majority of issues related to Fabric. This was a restaurant and alcohol was ancillary. The amendments made by the police and noise team were agreed. He considered that the presence of a restaurant would act as a deterrent. This was a local restaurant which would not attract a young crowd. There were robust conditions on CCTV, signage, refuse collection and deliveries and a direct telephone number was offered. The restaurant was small with 59 covers and sat below framework hours on Fridays and Saturdays. The applicant stated that his two other premises had residents living above and they had become part of the neighbourhood. They would light up the area as much as they were able. Deliveries were made by their own staff and not by third parties. Deliveries took place between 8.30am and 11am. For refuse collections they used Islington Council. The restaurants attracted nearly two thirds of women to their restaurants and mainly 40-65 year olds. They were sensitive to their neighbours.

In response to questions, they assessed their patrons demographics through their online booking system and when they visited their restaurants. They set ourselves out as a female friendly brand. He had been at South Kensington for 8 years and Queensway for nearly three. They were concerned about female safety, not only for patrons but also for staff. They did not take bookings after 9 or 9.30pm.  They staggered bookings so dispersal was also staggered. We encouraged  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.