Agenda and minutes

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 were received from Councillor Satnam Gill.

Councillor Flora Williamson for Councillor Satnam 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.

RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer advised that references to ‘Sunday to Monday’ at paragraph 1.2 of the report should read ‘Monday to Sunday’. It was also clarified that the applicant was seeking to add one hour to the terminal hour of licensable activities and the closing time of the premises on the morning that Greenwich Mean Time changes to British Summer Time.

The licensing authority stated that the premises was in the Clerkenwell cumulative impact area. The applicant was seeking to reinstate the licensable hours previously in operation before the licensable hours were reduced in November 2014 following the introduction of the late night levy. It was noted that the Police had suggested additional conditions relating to CCTV equipment, and the Noise Team had suggested amended conditions relating to noise.

The Police did not consider the current licence to be fit for purpose for a venue carrying out licensable activity until 04:00am. It was commented that the Police contacted the applicant in mid-December 2016 to enquire about plans for the premises, door supervisor arrangements, and further details of the operating schedule; however the Police had not been able to meet with the applicant. The Police reported that the applicant would accept additional conditions suggested in relation to the operation of CCTV equipment; however the Police maintained their objection to the application due to the insufficient information received on other aspects of the application.

Following a question, it was advised that the Police was aware that there may be a change of ownership to the premises.

The Licensing Authority stated that, although the premises previously had later licensable hours, in practice the premises had not previously operated to the full extent of its licence, and for this reason it was considered that a late licence had not been adequately tested at the premises. It was also commented that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the licensing objectives and an understanding of the risks to the cumulative impact area. The Licensing Authority would expect additional information and conditions to be offered in relation to door supervision, dispersal arrangements, vertical drinking, PubWatch schemes and work with Parkguard.  For this reason the Licensing Authority considered that the application should be refused.

The applicant’s representative circulated a skeleton argument to the Sub-Committee which contained an appraisal of cumulative impact issues. It was confirmed that this had previously been received by the Police.

The applicant’s representative advised of a possible change of ownership to the premises. If the ownership of the premises was to change then the operating hours and staffing arrangements would need to be confirmed, however in either case the premises would offer substantial food at all times, last entry would be two hours before the terminal hour, and at least one SIA qualified member of staff would be on the premises after 11:00pm. It was commented that the resident representations received did not raise issue with how the current business operated, and it was acknowledged that the premises’ dispersal policy was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

The licensing officer advised that the Police had applied for a review of the premises licence following a series of violent incidents at the premises. An additional submission had been received from the Police in relation to a GBH incident at the premises on 15 January 2017. It was also noted that the licensee had submitted proposed revised conditions, which are set out as an appendix to these minutes.

The Police reported that the premises had been poorly managed over the past 18 months, noting that the licensee had refused Police advice and neither the licensee nor the DPS had contacted the Police in relation to incidents at the premises. The Police summarised the violent incidents occurring at the premises and reported that since the review had been submitted there had been three further GBH incidents and one common assault at the premises. Given the history of disturbances at the premises and the lack of commitment from the licensee and DPS to address these adequately, the Police requested that the licence be revoked.

Following a question, the Police advised that all violent incidents had occurred around midnight or later, and the premises seemed to operate without incident during the day and evening.

In response to a question, it was advised that the venue was associated with a disproportionate number of violent incidents for a venue of its size. 

The Licensing Authority shared the concerns of the Police, commenting that the seriousness and frequency of violent incidents at the premises was not acceptable. The Licensing Authority considered that the conditions proposed by the applicant were not extensive enough and suggested that they would not be confident that the premises was being managed responsibly so long as the licensee and DPS were involved in the running of the premises.

The Health Authority considered that the premises had not been managed responsibly and noted that there was a high level of violence and drunkenness associated with the premises. There had been a significant number of ambulance call outs to the vicinity of the venue, with 84 call outs within 250 metres of the premises in the previous 12 months. The Health Authority supported the Police’s application for a review and suggested that, if the Sub-Committee was minded to retain the licence, then additional conditions restricting the use of glasses and glass bottles at the venue and restricting entry to those aged 21 and over would be appropriate.

Trading Standards reported concerns about underage patrons in the premises, suggesting that restricting entry to those aged 21 and over would be appropriate. It was suggested that an additional condition requiring the adoption of ‘Challenge 25’ and relevant training would be appropriate.

The Noise Team advised that the out of hours service had received intermittent calls related to the premises. The application for review was supported.

The licensee’s representative advised that Canas Y Tapas had ceased trading and heads of terms for the sale of the premises had been agreed on 26^th January 2017. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.