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.

Councillor Raphael Andrews substituted for Councillor Erdogan.

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 was as the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 18 December 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that additional information from the applicant had been circulated following publication of the agenda which included additional proposed conditions and a plan of the premises.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

Steve Harrington, licensing police, was concerned that there had been late communication from the applicant to discuss the application.  There had been agreement with conditions but not with the licensing hours.  The police were requesting refusal of the application based on cumulative impact as they would expect increasing footfall.  If the application was granted they asked that conditions be applied to the licence together with a revised CCTV condition.

In response to questions he considered that Tesco, as a well known company, would bring in greater footfall.  It was reported that the previous shop had been closed for about two years. There had been 252 reported crimes in the year but it was not known if these had taken place during the day or the evening.

The licensing authority reported that the initial application had not contained much information.  There were a high number of licensed premises already in the area.  The previous occupant was a small family run business and it was expected that there would be a much greater increase in sales of alcohol and therefore a greater access to alcohol with the grant of this application.  It was the view of the licensing authority that there would be a cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

In response to questions, the licensing authority reported that extra conditions could not prevent the additional impact from people buying alcohol and causing problems on the street. There would still be problems with street drinkers and loiterers even with well managed premises and despite the proposed condition that only 15% of the floor space would be used for the display of alcohol.

Councillor Paul Convery and a local business spoke against the application. He stated that the three ward councillors had put in a representation.  Councillor Convery stated that the police had provided a clear and unambiguous reason for refusal and it was stated in the home office guidance at paragraph 9.12 that the authority should accept these representations unless it would not be appropriate to do so.  He asked members to consider licensing policy 1 and informed them that this was an area at risk of anti-social behaviour which was alcohol fuelled and unpredictable in nature and in his view, the granting of the licence would accelerate this. There was a rebuttable presumption as detailed in licensing policy 2.  The premises had been closed for two and half years and the area was declared a saturation zone after this time.  The previous occupant was a speciality store which would not have the large numbers of customers that an international supermarket would have.  He also stated that No 325 Caledonian Road had planning consent for A2 use and was not to be used on Sundays. The local business referred to anti-social behaviour caused by drunk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The licensing officer reported that no response had been received from local residents.

The applicant reported that this was a concept for an American diner, food led restaurant.  Alcohol sales were likely to be 2% of the total sales.  Conditions had been agreed with the police and the noise team as a result of discussions to address concerns.  This was not an off licence and hours were within framework hours detailed in the licensing policy. The premises were not likely to add to crime and disorder or public nuisance. There were over 30 restaurants in this chain with an unblemished record. 

In response to questions, it was noted that the start time of 09:00 am was usual for the other restaurants and alcohol would have to be served with food.  There was to be no vertical drinking and was a fully laid out restaurant with tables and chairs.  The application for alcohol was to ensure consistency across all of the restaurants in the chain although it was not considered that alcohol was usually served for breakfast.

In summary, the applicant reported that the company had an unblemished record.  The restaurants operated nationwide. The style was an American Diner restaurant and proposed conditions addressed concerns. 

RESOLVED

a) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Ed’s Easy Diner, N1 Centre, 23 Parkfield Street, N1 OPS be granted to allow the sale of alcohol, on and off supplies, Mondays to Sundays from 09:00 to 23:00.

b) Conditions as outlined in appendix 3 as detailed on page 70 of the agenda shall 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.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee noted that this was a food led restaurant, with no vertical drinking and with limited off sales.  The alcohol that would be sold was with meals and consisted of Alco shakes which were limited to a 25 ml shot of alcohol per 650 ml of milkshake. The hours requested were within the licensing policy framework hours.

The Sub-Committee concluded that there were exceptional grounds for granting the application and that the applicant had rebutted the presumption that the granting of the application would increase the cumulative impact and impact negatively on the licensing objectives.