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.

Apologies were received from Councillor Gill.

Councillor Nick Wayne substituted for Councillor Gill.

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 as the agenda.  The Committee noted that Items B2, B3 had been deferred and Item C1 had been withdrawn by the applicant.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings held on the 1 December 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that police conditions 24-29 on pages 112-115 had been agreed except for condition 27, which had been removed.  The police representation still stood.  Proposed conditions 6, 7, 15 and 16  had been replaced with police conditions.  Noise conditions had also been amended and agreed and as a result the noise representation had been withdrawn.  Revised conditions were circulated and would be interleaved with the agenda papers. 

The police referred the Sub-Committee to their representation and stated that following an incident on the 1 January 2016 they had requested CCTV. Mrs Hassan had stated she was out of the country and Mr Blowes had said he had no dealings with the premises and would let Mr Hassan know. There had been no further response. There was an incident on the 10 May 2015, whilst the premises was under the stewardship of the two applicants.  In the appeal judgement the District Judge had made comments regarding the management team and nothing had dissuaded the police from this view.

In response to questions it was noted that a meeting had been held between the applicant and the police at the end of August/beginning of September.  No other meetings had been held since. Mr Hassan had been stepping down at the end of 2014 which had left several months without him in charge.

The licensing authority officer stated that she had two major concerns regarding this application.  Firstly that this was in a cumulative impact area and the onus was on the applicant to address the cumulative impact.  There had been no reference regarding this in the application and there had been no information to state how this would be addressed.  Secondly, regarding the standards of management.  The two applicants had been previously involved and at the time the appeal was heard the District Judge also had no confidence.  The applicant was not convincing and she did not see the high standards of management required in the Borough or in the cumulative impact area.

In response to questions there had been no contact with licensing officers from the management since the application had been made. There had been regular contact from the applicant, Mr Blowes, with regard to complaints.

Local resident, Nikki Stewart spoke in objection to the application and also as a member of the Furlong Residents Association.  She stated that she strongly objected to the application.  The two applicants were associates and both had managed the premises previously.  The premises had a long history of crime with years of persistent anti-social behaviour including noise when leaving, fighting and drug taking.  Two residents had moved out due to the impact of the premises.  The application included the hiring out of the basement in a club that held 150 people  Dispersal would be at 1am. There were no safeguards for residents. She considered that the application for a coffee shop was disingenuous and that the applicants would be unfettered to resurrect the Peoples Social Club.  The dispersal policy did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been deferred by the applicant.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been deferred by the applicant.

The licensing officer reported that the applicant’s solicitor had written a letter to the objectors and, as a result, one objection had been withdrawn.  The letter and response from an applicant were tabled and interleaved with the agenda papers.

The local resident reported that alcohol would be sold until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays and not Sundays as stated in the report.  She reported that this premises was in the cumulative impact zone.  It was general acceptable if alcohol was ancillary and the impact negligible. She had concerns regarding the off licence.  In the past eighteen months there had been six applications in the area.  Three had been refused or withdrawn.  Others had been granted an off licence for outside dining, with a take away or for bottles that had not been finished at the restaurant. She was pleased to see the restriction to wines and beers although concerned regarding the increasing number of craft beers with a high alcohol content.  She requested a condition to restrict the off licence.

The applicant recognised the concerns regarding the off licence.  The applicant proposed that no more than 20% of the trading area shall be used for the display of wine and beer for off sales.  This would require future licensees requiring a variation if they needed further off sales.  If there was a limit to Spanish wine, champagne could not be served.  If food had to be taken away with off sales of alcohol this may result in littering.

In response to questions it was noted that there would be a small area which would be open to customers for them to handle the wine.  It was considered that an allowed percentage would be preferable to an drawn area.  If the area was ever moved the licensee would be in breach.

In summary, the resident considered that any area would need to be small enough to deter future occupiers.

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Lolo, 43 Upper Street, N1 OPN, be granted to permit:-

a)           The sale by retail of alcohol, on and off supplies, Sundays to Thursdays from 10:00 until 23:00 and Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 until midnight and

b)           The premises to be open to the public, Sundays to Thursdays from 08:00 until 23:00 and Fridays and Saturdays from 08:00 until midnight.

2)       Conditions as outlined in Appendix 3 as detailed on pages 192/193 of the agenda, with the following addition, shall be applied to the licence.

·        No more than 15% of the entire floor area shall be used for the display of wine and beer for off sales.

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 cumulative impact area.  Licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

The licensing officer reported that this was an application to change the layout and to extend the hours Thursday to Sunday mornings from 9am.  Conditions had been agreed with the police. A letter outlining the business concept and a menu was tabled and would be interleaved with the agenda.

A local resident stated that she had been disturbed by noise from builders for the past five months. She had never had such poor relations with the occupiers previously.  The area was not short of restaurants, bars or nightclubs but was short of accommodation.  In Upper Street, noise could be heard up until 4am despite triple glazing and earplugs.  Deliveries then started very early in the morning.  There was a lack of space for pedestrians due to the litter and tables and chairs outside. There should be more consideration for residents.

In response to questions it was noted that the resident heard noise from the refurbishment and the restaurant. The manager was not present all the time to address complaints. The resident above the restaurant had stated that the noise was awful as the acoustic boards did not work.  Staff hung around outside smoking.  The smell of cooking was horrendous.  The builders had agreed that the noise was shocking. The resident had the contact details and made complaints on a daily basis.  She considered she had not been treated very well by the licensees.

The applicants stated that this was a family run business.  Speakers could be regulated separately.  They had checked noise levels with the father of the occupant of the flat above and he was happy.  They would wish to have a good relationship with other occupiers.  They were a high end restaurant.  The applicant admitted there were problems with the speakers initially but removed the ceiling speakers. The bar manager had won an award for his drink and hours were requested to provide a signature drink with brunch. They had problems with the flat roof leaking into their premises and this had been resolved.  New extraction fans were installed. 

In response to questions it was noted that as a restaurant it was not expected that smokers would stand outside.  There was a nightclub next door and smokers would share their space with the occupants of the nightclub.  A table licence had been applied for. Some work had been carried out on the objectors door which the builder had not yet completed.  Deliveries of fresh fish were made from Cornwall and the deliverer would be asked to be as quiet as possible.  All other deliveries were made during the day.  A shutter had been installed so that customers from other premises would not urinate in the porch area.

In summary, the resident reported that there was constant noise from traffic and constant vibration which she accepted was not all the fault of the applicants.

The applicant stated that the objections did not revolve around the licensing hours.  Any complaints had been addressed and dealt with quickly. 

RESOLVED

1)   That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The applicant stated that he had a family run business and had a good connection with the neighbourhood.  He had applied originally for a 09:00 am start but following discussions with the licensing team had revised it to 10:00 am. He accepted all of the proposed police conditions.

RESOLVED

1)   That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Five, Four, Ate, 548 Holloway Road, N7 6JP be granted to permit the sale of alcohol, on supplies only, Monday to Sunday from 10:00 hours until 21:00 hours.

2)   Conditions as outlined in Appendix 3 as detailed on pages 252/253 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 noted that there was one resident objection to the application.  The resident had not attended the meeting.  Conditions proposed by the police had been agreed by the applicant.  Following consultation with the licensing team, the applicant had amended the application to commence the sale of alcohol at 10:00 am.

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises would be run as a restaurant and alcohol would be ancillary to meals.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the proposed operation would promote the licensing objectives and therefore agreed to grant the application.

The Sub-Committee noted that the temporary event notice had been withdrawn by the applicant.