Agenda and minutes

Councillor Nick Wayne welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves. He stated that the Licensing Authority, through the Licensing Policy, wanted to support applications which encouraged people visiting, working and living in the borough. It was expected that businesses would work with the licensing authority and other responsible authorities to uphold the licensing objectives. He urged that the licensee for Item B4, The Sekforde Arms, together with residents and the noise team, use the time during the meeting, before Item B4 was considered, to see if they could reach a workable agreement.  

The Chair outlined the procedure for the conduct of the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kadeema Woodbyrne.

Councillor Williamson substituted for Councillor Woodbyrne.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be B4, B1, B2 and B3.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that four resident representations had been withdrawn following a letter sent by the applicant to residents to address their concerns.

It was noted that planning permission had only been granted until 11pm on Sunday. The applicant stated that they would only use the correct hours granted for planning and would apply for an extension for the hour on Sunday if necessary.

The applicant stated that this was a food led venue where customers could also have a drink. The hours of 6pm to 11pm were expected. The premises would have a sit down table service. The music application had been withdrawn as was not required. Conditions had been agreed with the police and noise team. The applicant wished to engage with local residents.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of 177a Blackstock Road, N5 2LT, be granted to allow:-

a)    The supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises only, from Monday to Sunday from 11am until midnight.

b)    Late night refreshment: Monday to Sunday from 11pm until midnight. 

c)    Opening hours to be:-  Monday to Sunday from 11am until midnight.

2)    That conditions detailed on pages 44 and 45 of the agenda 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 eight local resident objections had been received. Four had been withdrawn following the applicant’s communication with residents. There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought had been reduced as compared to the previous operation and that it would be a food led venue.

The applicants confirmed their understanding and acceptance of the conditions imposed by the noise team.  They indicated that they wanted to engage with local residents and demonstrated their experience and the high standards of management that they would be implementing at the premises.

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises did not have planning permission for the proposed use on Sunday and the applicants indicated that they would only operate within their planning permission hours unless they sought a variation. Therefore, in accordance with licensing policy 1 the Sub-Committee concluded that this was a case where an exception could be made to grant an application where planning consent for the intended hours of operation was not fully in place.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that by granting the licence with the proposed conditions the licensing objectives would be promoted.

The licensing officer reported that the planning situation had been regularised.

A local resident raised concerns about licensed premises in the area relating to noise disturbance, and problems with parking. She thought that another premises would have an impact on the area.  

In response to questions the resident stated that noise disturbance started from about 9pm or 10pm and this premises was very close to where she lived.

The applicant’s representative stated that the premises would not have a negative impact on the area.  This would be a mixed use premises during the day and early evening.  Benugo was already in existence but there was to be a new trial to add a small selection of alcohol to the offer.  This had already been trialled in other outlets and alcohol sold was less than 5% of the offer.  There would be bottled beers and wine on the premises but the nature and character of the business would not change.  Conditions had been agreed with the police and the licensing authority.  The addition of an alcohol licence would offer flexibility.  He considered that this would meet the licensing objectives and addressed the cumulative impact policy.  This was a coffee shop that was reliant on footfall and not affected by parking.  The premises were not currently open on weekend evenings, although might in the future.  Hours could be reduced if considered necessary by the Sub-Committee. He requested that the licence be granted as agreed and considered that the premises would have a positive impact on the area.

In response to questions it was noted that spirits would not be sold initially but could be in future.  There would be no vertical drinking.

In summary, the resident stated that, although the applicant’s representative had stated that little alcohol would be sold, this was a different type of area and a small amount of alcohol sales could not be guaranteed.  She also considered that some people would still drive to cafes. The applicant’s representative stated that the Sub-Committee should attach weight to the fact that there had been no objections by the responsible authorities and conditions with the police and the licensing authority had been agreed.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Benugo, 116 St John Street, EC1V 4JS be granted to allow:-

a)    The sale of alcohol, on and off supplies, from 10am until 9pm Monday to Saturday and from 12 noon until 9pm on Sunday; 

b)    Opening hours to be:-  7am until 11pm Monday to Saturday and from 7am until 10.30 pm on Sunday.

2)  That conditions detailed on pages 78 and 79 of the agenda 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 Policies 2 & 3.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The licensing officer reported that there were no representations from the responsible authorities.

The applicant’s representative advised that the application was for the restaurant area only, for an additional half an hour to allow for a second sitting in the restaurant. It was stated that for the previous application there had been 60 representations and these were now down to three for this application. The premises had worked with local residents before the application had been made.  The premises had allowed a Christmas party in December 2017 and this led to many of the complaints in the papers. There had also been one complaint this year relating to a delivery van at 5.30am but the van was not delivering to the premises.  It was noted that this was a good restaurant and many of the residents used it.

In response to questions it was noted that there was an open door policy for complaints and there was a concierge present.  They had good dialogue with residents. The applicant stated that they always closed on time.  The CCTV would evidence this and it was considered that there would be more complaints if they had not closed on time.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a premises licence variation, in respect of For a Space, 71 Central Street, EC1V 8BU, be granted to allow:-

1)         The sale of alcohol, on supplies, from 10am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and from 10am to 10.30pm on Sundays. 

2)         Opening hours to be:-  10am to 11.30pm Monday to Saturday from 10am until 11.00pm on Sundays.

3)         To add off supplies for the restaurant area. 

2)     That conditions detailed on page 115 of the agenda 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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Bunhill cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

Three local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of interested parties and the submissions from the applicant that a large number of the issues raised related to a Christmas Party.  The applicant confirmed that this type of event would not be allowed in the future.  The applicant submitted that there was a good relationship with residents and there was a regular dialogue with the resident’s group.

The Sub-Committee noted that that the request to extend the premises licence was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

The licensee outlined the reasons why he considered that the application for the review was not valid as set out in a skeleton argument circulated to the Sub-Committee and interleaved with the agenda papers.

In response to questions the licensee reported that the case of Akin v Stratford did not help as it did not deal with a defect it in the application.  He stated that the application was not valid as it not been served properly.  He did not consider that he had been prejudiced but that the review was invalid as there had not been compliance with the form. The licensee also stated that the application had been made in the name of the Pollution Team which was not a responsible authority and did not have a legal personality.  He did not consider that the Sub-Committee would have jurisdiction on that point alone.

Anne Brothers, pollution team, reported that a notice had been served on the recognised responsible authorities electronically. There were minor defects in the application but no prejudice had been caused to the licensee.

The legal officer advised the Sub-Committee that there were three points to consider:-

1)    Had the application been made by a responsible authority

2)    Was there evidence of service

3)    Had the review application been fully completed.

Regarding point 1 - it had been accepted that Ms Brothers had the delegated authority on behalf of the London Borough of Islington.  There were a number of responsible authorities within the same Authority.  It was available for the Sub-Committee to consider that the Pollution Team was a responsible authority. The Sub-Committee could also consider whether the application should have been made by the London Borough of Islington and if this was an error, was it fatal and would it have made the application invalid?

Regarding point 2 - was the Sub-Committee satisfied that the application had been served as required? The Sub-Committee could take a view when considering the regulations.  If not served as required, was this a fatal mistake?

Regarding point 3 – the Sub-Committee would need to consider if the form had been fully completed.  The licensee had submitted that this was a procedural requirement. Was the application so defective it was invalid, had there been substantial compliance, were they minor defects and had the respondent been disadvantaged or prejudiced.

In response to questions the legal advisor stated that the respondent had invited the Sub-Committee to consider case law and the Sub-Committee could consider this during deliberation.

Following an adjournment to consider the issues, the Sub-Committee returned to the meeting room to raise questions for clarification.

1)     The licensee was asked to clarify if the Sub-Committee should be considering regulation 27 A rather than B as detailed in submissions.  The respondent confirmed that 27 B was an administrative error.

2)     The licensing authority was asked if electronic applications were accepted by email and if this had been agreed.  The licensing authority confirmed that electronic applications would have been agreed at the time.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.