Agenda and minutes

Councillor Flora Williamson 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 was as the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on the 23 June 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

That the minutes of the meeting on the 30 June 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings, subject to the following amendment, and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

That the words ‘They would do everything to maintain the residents’ privacy.’ be inserted after the word ‘overlooking on page 40, paragraph 2.

The licensing officer reported that conditions had been agreed with the noise team and their representation had been withdrawn. 

The metropolitan police stated that they had received an acknowledgement to their email sent on 8 August 2015 but had no further response after this. The hours applied for were a concern to the police and they suggested that the sale of alcohol, if a licence was granted, should commence at 9am at the earliest.  They had policed this area and were well aware of the problems and did not want temptation for schoolchildren or for their parents. They required one SIA door staff for two months at the least.  The applicant had accepted the CCTV condition.  The area was saturated with off licences and the applicant had not put forward any security proposals. The police stated that their objection still remained.

The health authority reported that this area was probably the worst in Islington for the number of ambulance related call outs.  They were significantly higher than Islington as whole and 37 call outs in the area were directly related to alcohol in the past 12 months.  This area already had a large number of licensed premises. There were street drinking concerns in the area. 

The licensing authority reported that there was a high density of licensed premises in the area.  In a 250m radius there were 12 off licences.  The feedback from residents was that crime was a concern.  The licensing authority did not consider that there was any real evidence that had been provided that showed how the premises would not impact on the area.

Councillor Janet Burgess, ward councillor, reported that the area was improving through regeneration.  The police had increased resources in the area to improve problems related to street drinking.  The cumulative impact policy had been brought in partly due to the large number of off licences in the Archway area and had been used to good effect in the Clerkenwell area.  The start time of 6am was too early and the police were concerned with the crime issues in the Borough.

The applicant’s lawyer reported that this was an application for a new premises licence.  The instructions he had were for a licence from 6am until midnight.  The conditions put forward were not standard conditions and did have regard to the Licensing Policy.  Conditions had been included regarding no sale of single cans, no high abv and alcohol behind shutters to reduce the likelihood of street drinkers purchasing alcohol.  Street drinkers could go to other stores.  It was accepted that the security condition was vague but would prefer that this not be changed. There were other premises operating in the area which did not have these restrictive conditions.  He stated that with these conditions the premises would not add to the street drinking problems and were therefore unlikely to add to the cumulative impact.  The noise condition and police CCTV condition had been agreed.  He considered that underage and street drinking concerns were dealt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The licensing officer reported that this was a variation of a licence to allow for the sale of alcohol, live music and late night refreshment from midnight to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays.  Conditions had been agreed with the noise team.

The police reported that there had been 536 reported crimes in the ward in the past 12 weeks.  It was admitted that these were not necessarily alcohol related.  The premises did have issues previously but was now better managed.  There was a concern that, with the additional hours and additional alcohol, the previous problems would return.

The licensing authority raised concerns regarding noise breakout and the impact of the activities of patrons at the premises on residents after midnight. 

In response to questions it was noted that there was no condition on the licence for alcohol to be ancillary to food.  The restaurant was on the ground floor and patrons could drink in the basement. 

Interested parties spoke against the application.  One local resident raised concerns regarding the noise nuisance from patrons smoking outside and leaving the premises.  There were no tables in the basement.  This was a very residential area with Kestrel House opposite and new developments close by.  They did not consider that the premises were designed to be able to limit noise escape as it was an old Victorian property.  Another local resident stated that the licence had been previously revoked and local people had concerns regarding the past history, the noise escape from the premises, noise from patrons leaving, the noise from bottling up and putting the rubbish out which already was a problem, the already dense residential area and the general view that the current arrangements should remain.  It was also stated that a 2am licence would give only a 2 to 3 hour sleeping period as a local supermarket opened at 5am.

In response to questions a local resident reported that she had spoken to three residents in the block behind the premises who had informed her of their concerns. 

The applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that this application was for a variation on Friday and Saturdays only for licensable activities up until 2am.  The customers would have food until 11pm on the ground floor and move to the basement to continue until 2am.  Four temporary events had been held and the concerns of the police and the licensing authority had been met.  There had been no issues with these TENs.  There was a sound limiter.  Not many people gathered outside the premises.  They should not be penalised for problems under the previous licence holder.  The licence would be used for private functions.  They stated that they could have recorded music only.  Staff left at midnight so any noise after this time should not be from this premises.

In response to questions it was noted that customers could have a drink downstairs and disperse gradually.  There were signs asking customers to leave quietly and be considerate to neighbours. There had been no complaints  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The Sub-Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn by the applicant.