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 and those present were informed that the procedure was detailed in the papers.

None.

None.

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 would be B1, B6, B2-B5.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 29 April 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that additional information had been tabled from the licensee’s representative.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The licensing officer reported that representations on pages 63 and 81 should be deleted from the application.  The licensee’s representative stated that representations numbered 3, 5 and 8 should also be deleted from the application as the interested parties had not confirmed in writing that they wished these representations carried forward to this second review application, following the incorrect submission of a first review.  It was also noted that the incorrect licence number was detailed in the application although he advised that this was not an issue that he required a decision on.

The Sub-Committee agreed to adjourn to consider this matter.

Following the adjournment, in response to a question from the Chair of the Sub-Committee, the Service Director Public Protection confirmed that Councillor Poole had confirmed verbally to her prior to the 24 July 2014 that he wished to continue with his representation.  The Chair reported therefore, that representations 3 and 5 would remain but representation 8 would be excluded from the application.  In response to a question from the licensee’s representative, the Chair reported that the Sub-Committee considered that the police knew for which licence they were submitting the review even though the licence number was incorrect.

Rory Clark, representing the police, summarised the incidents as detailed in the review papers and a further incident on the 13 April 2014 which he stated could be taken into account.  He stated that the majority of these incidents occurred after midnight.  He was therefore requesting a reduction in hours, the removal of the door staff team, and the immediate removal of the designated premises supervisor for the reasons as detailed on page 21 of the agenda. He reported that the venue had a young customer base and better management was required for such a high risk venue.  The changing of the door team has now been carried out reluctantly and they would not wish to see the designated premises supervisor still in post in October.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee it was noted that the designated premises supervisor had agreed to submit a variation application to address the problems at the venue but this was not received until April 2014. Revocation was not sought as most of the problems were related to the hours and the style of the venue.  A reduction in hours would result in a different style of venue.

The noise officer reported on her representation detailed in the papers.  She had spoken to the licensee about a group of people sitting outside the premises makinga noise disturbance during a visit in October.  She reported that the venue attracted a very young crowd.

The licensing authority reported that the police review was supported.  Management had regularly been given advice after each incident, but issues had not improved. A minor variation was not received until 20 March 2014 despite a promise to submit a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Three local residents spoke against the application. They reported that there were two other licensed premises in very close proximity.  There was an off-licence and a public house next door.  There was a lot of anti-social behaviour in the area.  Elderly people were often frightened to go out and there were children and young teenagers hanging around.  There was a lot of street drinking in the area.  The premises was just outside the cumulative impact area. 

In response to questions the residents considered that the anti-social behaviour would be made worse with another licensed premises.  Problems in the area were mainly alcohol related. There were five or six other licensed premises in the area.

Mr Jordan, agent, representing the licensee, spoke in support of the application.  He reported that conditions had been agreed with the responsible authorities.  The licensee had been operating for 24 years and had sold other age related products.  Many of the objections did not relate to this premises.  The licensee did not want to sell high strength alcohol. A comprehensive CCTV condition was proposed.

In response to questions it was noted that the licensee had a comprehensive training programme, understood the cumulative impact policy and was aware of the close proximity of the area.  The proposed hour of 8am was in line with other local premises.  Residents had not mentioned the early hour in their representations. Customers expected to buy all their groceries in one store.  He wished to provide a variety of products as other larger stores did.

In summary, the residents reported that an additional licensed premises would add to the existing problems in the area.  The premises was near a bus stop and people would nip in the premises to purchase drink.  There had been 15 representations against the application.  This was another alcohol outlet which would lead to further anti-social behaviour.

Mr Jordan reported that there was no causal link to this premises.  There had been no objections from the responsible authorities and no criticism of the training programme.

RESOLVED

1) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of D and B UK Ltd, 359 Caledonian Road, N7 be granted:-

a) To supply alcohol for consumption off the premises from 08:00 to 22:30 on Monday to Sunday.

b) For the opening hours of the premises to be from 05:00 to 22:30 on Monday to Sunday.

2) Conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on pages 237/238 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.

The Sub-Committee noted that proposed conditions 34-36 duplicated the noise team conditions and could be deleted.

A local resident was concerned about noise and disruption from the new premises.  Their residential block had been missed in the planning consultation as it was believed that it was an office building and not residential.  They were concerned that the premises would be open for drinking at 9am in the morning

Caroline Jenkins, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She reported that this premises was a relocation for the previous campus student union bar.  The early hours requested were those held under the previous licence, although alcohol was not served at 9am.  The premises would not be open at weekends.  A security team was back in house and would be considering the dispersal of patrons. A community engagement plan was a condition of their planning permission and it was expected that meetings would be held for residents at least twice yearly.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that it was not expected to hire the premises out at weekends.  The area contained seating booths and pool tables and was not easily rentable.  The students at the university tended not to stay at the university at the weekend so it was not planned to open the area for students.  There was expected to be a smoking area outside the premises, on the main road, for 15 people.  The bar was to be managed by an experienced catering company.  Prices for alcohol would be slightly cheaper than Weatherspoon outlets but not excessively so. Promotions were not to be run at the premises. There was seating for 147 people with a capacity of 450. The bar had been moved to an area that had been considered as less residential.  The previous bar was there for many decades with very few incidents.

RESOLVED

1) That the new premises licence in respect of Saddlers Bar, City University, 10 Northampton Square, EC1 be granted to allow the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, live music, recorded music and the performance of dance between 09:00 hours and 23:00 hours Monday to Fridays.

2) Conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on page 283/285 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence subject to the deletion of conditions 34-36.

The licensing officer reported that this application was for an extension to the licensed area and not to the licensing hours.

A local resident raised concerns regarding the noise outside the premises with people standing around talking.  Children in the building would be trying to sleep before 9pm.  She also raised concerns regarding the waste disposal which took  place late at night.

Thomas O’Maoileoin, representing the designated premises supervisor Nr Needham, informed the Sub-Committee that this was an application to extend the licensed area.  The application was limited to two tables and four chairs and the outside area would have to be cleared by 9pm.  The premises was currently licensed until midnight at weekends and the reduction to 9pm he considered reasonable. The refuse was collected by the Council during specified times. The Sub-Committee noted that diners could eat outside until midnight, without alcohol, as it was in the confines of the premises.

In summary the local resident informed the Sub-Committee that her daughter went to bed at 8pm.  She considered it disproportionate to grant this licence for an additional four people.  She asked the Sub-Committee to note a condition of the licence that doors would be kept shut to prevent noise onto the street.

RESOLVED

1) That a premises licence variation in respect of Foxlow, 69-73 St John Street, EC1 be granted to extend the licensable area to include an outside dining area, limited to 4 people and not to be used after 21:00 hours.

2) The following conditions shall be applied to the licence:

1.     Conditions of the current premises licence.

2.     Conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on page 320 of the agenda.

Nick Baker, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He reported that flower sales were declining and he wished to sell wine and champagne with flowers when requested.  He submitted that the shop was in the less saturated end of Upper Street and the alcohol that he intended to sell would cost more than £8 per bottle. Alcohol would be stored in a locked cabinet.

The applicant raised a concern regarding the wording of suggested condition 1 and was advised that this was ancillary to the nature of the business and flowers did not need to be purchased with each sale of alcohol.

RESOLVED

1) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Angel Flowers, 60 Upper Street, N1 be granted To allow the sale by retail of alcohol, off supplies only, Mondays from 09:00 until 18:00, Tuesdays to Saturdays from 09:00 until 19:00 and Sundays from 11:00 until 17:00.

2) Conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on page 340 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence subject to the following amendment to condition 1. 

·       The sale of alcohol be limited to wine or champagne and shall be ancillary to the business operating as a flower shop.

The trading standards officer summarised the reasons for the review application.  She reported that in February 2014, a volunteer working with trading standards had asked to buy cigarettes from the premises.  He was asked his age by the seller but when he produced no proof of age he was still sold the cigarettes.  No offence was committed but the trading standards team spoke to the seller and stressed the importance of using Challenge 25.  On 26 February, trading standards officers returned and seized 173 bottles of non duty paid wine from the premises.  At this stage Mr Depala was requested to seek a variation to add additional conditions that were appropriate to the licence. This was followed up by reminder letters from the trading standards team.  A variation was not applied for or contact made and a review application was therefore made.  The trading standards officer recommended a short suspension of the licence.

The police reported that they fully supported the review of the licence.  The police were present at the seizure that took place in February and had asked Mr Depala to show them his personal licence.  Mr Depala produced a damaged card and he was requested to obtain a replacement.  This had not yet been seen.  It was noted that the police had requested an additional condition regarding high strength alcohol to be put on the premises licence.

Mr Depala, the licensee informed the Sub-Committee that this would not happen again. He produced a refusals book.  He reported that customers were not happy when alcohol was refused and would throw back their shopping. He had tried to renew his licence but the machine was broken.  The London Borough of Barnet wrote a letter confirming this.  Mr Depala produced a legible personal licence at the meeting.

In response to questions he stated that he had sent the variation application but had not sent the cheque.  It was noted that there had been no record of it being received.  The trading standards officer reported that Mr Depala was not the worst licensee but there had been a lack of engagement and there was a need for licensees to be more proactive.  Mr Depala stated that he asked his daughter to help with correspondence.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence for Tailor’s News, 279 Caledonian Rd, N1 be suspended for a period of two weeks and the licence be modified to include the conditions as detailed on pages 360 and 361 of the agenda.