You are here: Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 4, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD

Contact: Jackie Tunstall  020 7527 3068

No. Item


Introductions and procedure


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


Apologies for absence




Declarations of substitute members


There were no declarations of substitute members.


Declarations of interest

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.



Councillor Marian Spall declared that she was a ward councillor for item B2, Nisa Local, which was in Hillrise Ward.


Order of Business


The order of business would be as the agenda.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 175 KB



That the minutes of the meeting held on the 13 October 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.


Gunay Supermarket, 231 Seven Sisters Road, N4 2DA - Premises licence variation pdf icon PDF 3 MB


The licensing officer reported that there was no further update to the report.


The licensing authority stated that the premises were in the Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  There had been no mention of this in the application and there were no proposed conditions from the applicant.  The premises currently operated within framework hours and the licensing authority would be concerned of the impact on the area if the hours were extended.  It was an area which received noise complaints and they would want to minimise late night disturbance. During a licensing visit, after hours sales had been witnessed and it was noted that several licence conditions were being breached. The current designated premises supervisor was also the designated premises supervisor in 2012 when there was an unauthorised sale.  The applicant would be prepared to reduce the hours applied for until midnight with additional conditions and this was acceptable to the licensing authority, however they had not had an opportunity to speak to the applicant about how they would manage this additional hour in a cumulative impact area.


The police reported that they had spoken to the applicant and they had agreed to restrict licensing hours to midnight and also to update a CCTV condition and include a high strength beer condition.  The police stated that they would be agreeable to this.


The public health authority reported that the premises were located in a cumulative impact area and they were concerned that the increase in hours would have significant health impacts.  The area experienced a high level of ambulance callouts.  The proposal regarding a reduction in high strength alcohol would be acceptable.


The applicant’s representative stated he agreed with the reduction of hours to midnight with the conditions proposed.  He stated that it was difficult when the closing time was different to licensing hours as customers may cause trouble at the last minute.  He considered that 11pm was early for customers and the area was still busy after this time.


In response to questions the applicant’s representative stated that if the hour was extended until midnight they would have more staff and customers would know what time they would be closing. He considered they would not have trouble with customers at the last minute if the hours were extended until midnight.  When asked about cumulative impact the applicant’s representative stated that Seven Sisters Road was very active and traffic was busy.  He did not think that the extra hour would have any effect on the area.  The representative stated that it was less difficult if the licensing hours were the same as the closing time.


In summary, the licensing authority was concerned that the cumulative impact policy was not fully understood by the applicant when he had stated that Seven Sisters Road was a busy road.  She raised concerns about the standards of management and the number of staff on duty to cope with the extra customers who may be drunk.  She considered that the applicant should supply further information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.


Nisa Local, 89-91 Holland Walk, N19 3XU - Licence transfer application pdf icon PDF 2 MB


The licensing officer reported that she had received an email at 16.37 pm from the applicant asking for the application to be withdrawn. The licensing officer informed the agent that they would need to attend the meeting in order to withdraw the application. Two minutes later an identical application from the agent had been received for a licence transfer. It was reported that the previous licensee was facing an application for review and the application received that evening was a third application from the same applicant.


The police reported that a transfer application had been made previously but had been withdrawn just before the meeting. The police had asked for proof of sale but nothing had been received.  It was noted that the licensing officer had received a bank statement on the 5 December which showed a transfer of £20,000 and it was noted that this was more than two months after the alleged transfer.  The police were concerned that this was not a bona fide sale. 


In summary the licensing officer reported that the premises had been reviewed twice previously.  The area had on-going issues and the premises required strong management.


Concerns were expressed by the Sub-Committee that the applicant would not be able to fund this purchase and this raised questions about a bona fide sale.  The Chair stated that they would have been able to question the applicant if they had attended the hearing.



That the transfer of the premises licence to Buluthan Kartel be refused.



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, particularly in relation to Section 42, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.


The Sub-Committee heard from the licensing officer that at 16.37pm an email had been received from the applicant’s agent asking that the application be withdrawn. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had been informed on at least two occasions that in order to withdraw with less than 24 hours’ notice to the Sub-Committee it would be necessary to attend the Sub-Committee hearing.  As neither the applicant nor the agent attended to withdraw the application, the Sub-Committee decided to proceed with the hearing. 


The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that the applicant had made a previous identical application in September 2016 which was withdrawn just before the hearing.  The police had asked for proof of the sale of the premises but no such proof had been received. The police stated that at a visit to the property on the 2 November 2016 proof of sale was again requested. This was never received by the police although the Sub-Committee noted that a document entitled ‘agreement’ together with a solicitors bank statement had been submitted to the licensing officer. The Sub-Committee noted the police concerns that there had not been a bona fide sale and that it was in fact a sham arrangement.


The Sub-Committee noted that MHAK  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.