Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that additional information had been tabled from the licensee’s representative.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The licensing officer reported that representations on pages 63 and 81 should be deleted from the application.  The licensee’s representative stated that representations numbered 3, 5 and 8 should also be deleted from the application as the interested parties had not confirmed in writing that they wished these representations carried forward to this second review application, following the incorrect submission of a first review.  It was also noted that the incorrect licence number was detailed in the application although he advised that this was not an issue that he required a decision on.

The Sub-Committee agreed to adjourn to consider this matter.

Following the adjournment, in response to a question from the Chair of the Sub-Committee, the Service Director Public Protection confirmed that Councillor Poole had confirmed verbally to her prior to the 24 July 2014 that he wished to continue with his representation.  The Chair reported therefore, that representations 3 and 5 would remain but representation 8 would be excluded from the application.  In response to a question from the licensee’s representative, the Chair reported that the Sub-Committee considered that the police knew for which licence they were submitting the review even though the licence number was incorrect.

Rory Clark, representing the police, summarised the incidents as detailed in the review papers and a further incident on the 13 April 2014 which he stated could be taken into account.  He stated that the majority of these incidents occurred after midnight.  He was therefore requesting a reduction in hours, the removal of the door staff team, and the immediate removal of the designated premises supervisor for the reasons as detailed on page 21 of the agenda. He reported that the venue had a young customer base and better management was required for such a high risk venue.  The changing of the door team has now been carried out reluctantly and they would not wish to see the designated premises supervisor still in post in October.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee it was noted that the designated premises supervisor had agreed to submit a variation application to address the problems at the venue but this was not received until April 2014. Revocation was not sought as most of the problems were related to the hours and the style of the venue.  A reduction in hours would result in a different style of venue.

The noise officer reported on her representation detailed in the papers.  She had spoken to the licensee about a group of people sitting outside the premises makinga noise disturbance during a visit in October.  She reported that the venue attracted a very young crowd.

The licensing authority reported that the police review was supported.  Management had regularly been given advice after each incident, but issues had not improved. A minor variation was not received until 20 March 2014 despite a promise to submit a minor variation in November 2013. Revocation was not always necessary in the first instance and the premises could successfully be run within core licensing hours and with the removal of off sales with proper management in place.

Councillor Gary Poole reported that the responsible authorities were clear in their recommendations, however the residents were most affected by the problems and revocation of the licence was sought.  The designated premises supervisor was not running a safe or professional venue.

The local resident spoke in support of the review.  She reported that she had lived in the area for ten years and had never had problems before XOXO.  She stated that she had seen drug dealing, fights and customers drunk outside the premises, with management taking no responsibility for the problems.  She informed the Sub-Committee that she either did not go out of her premises at the weekends or she tried to go away. She considered that the imposition of conditions was meaningless as the current conditions were not being complied with.

In response to questions it was reported that, although the area did not have a high density of residential premises, XOXO did cause significant problems to a few.  The local resident reported that things improved at the premises when a review was submitted but once a review hearing had been heard, the problems re-occurred.

Mr Bromley, representing the licensee for XOXO, Mr Kohli, reported that, following a number of incidents a variation was submitted and further conditions were placed on the licence. These were effective from 16 April 2014.  The last incident was on the 13 April 2014.  Mr Kohli stated that he had adopted an over 21 policy and had employed a new door security team which had been brought in six weeks previously. The new door company stated that no issues had arisen since the new security team had taken over.  Adrian Studd, licensing consultant, reported on his visit which took place on the 31 May 2014.  He was aware of previous problems at the premises.  The area was very busy at the time of the visit and he considered that all of the premises in the area contributed to the problems but conceded the door staff could have been more proactive. He witnessed other restaurant customers using the alleyway in addition to XOXO customers.  

In response to questions it was noted that a door supervisor now stood in the alleyway to the right of the entrance to the premises.  It was noted that there was a happy hour from 4pm-8pm each day.  Mr Kohli reported that he had not put the variation in for five months as he had internal issues with his manager.  He reported that, with the new security firm in place things would get better going forward.

In summary, the police had concerns regarding under 21s and considered that they should not be allowed in the premises at any time and considered that over 18s would cause problems if allowed to remain. The noise officer reported that, given the past history, she had no confidence that there would be no problems if the hours were allowed to remain past midnight.  The licensing authority reported that it was usual to see swift action following a licensing panel and it was not necessary to bring a review hearing.  A new door team should have been in place at a much earlier stage and not once the review was submitted.  She reported that management had not shown the commitment that had been hoped. 

Councillor Poole and the local resident reported that they had no confidence that the conditions would be met and asked the licence to be revoked.

Mr Bromley reported that there had been no incidents since the first review of the licence was submitted.  A variation had been granted on the 16 April and this had not been given time to work.  No noise complaints had been received since 22 December 2013.  The new door supervisor team had improved the situation and could continue doing so.  The noise team accepted that matters had improved since April 2014.  He agreed that no persons under the age of 21 should be admitted at any time.

RESOLVED:

1) That the premises licence for XOXO, 74 Upper Street, N1 be modified as follows:-

a)  To remove Santosh Kohli as the designated premises supervisor immediately.

b)     To remove off sales from the premises licence.

c)     To reduce hours as follows:-

Sale by retail of alcohol, on sales only, Sundays to Thursdays from 10:00 until 23:00 hours and on Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 until midnight.

The provision of live music, recorded music and the showing of films, Sundays to Thursdays from 10:00 until 23:00 and Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 until midnight.

The provision of late night refreshment, Fridays and Saturdays from 23:00 until midnight and

Opening hours, Sundays to Thursdays from 10:00 until 23:30 and Fridays and Saturdays from 10:00 until 00:30 hours.

2) That the following conditions shall be applied to the licence:-

a)     Conditions of the current premises licence,

b)     The following additional conditions:-

·        There shall be a personal licence holder on duty on the premises at all times when the premises are authorised to sell alcohol.

·        When alcohol and/or regulated entertainment is provided by way of music and dancing, no less than two SIA registered door supervisors will be employed on Sunday to Thursday and no less than three on Fridays and Saturdays from 9pm until 30 minutes after closing. One of the SIA registered supervisors  sole responsibility will be to supervise the smoking area and the entrance to St Albans Place.

·        No persons under the age of 21 will be admitted to the premises at any time.

·        All staff engaged outside the entrance to the premises, or supervising or controlling queues, shall wear high visibility yellow jackets or vests.

·        A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

·        Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them.

·        he premises licence holder shall ensure that any patrons drinking and/or smoking outside the premises do so in an orderly manner and are supervised by staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the public highway.

·        In the event that a serious assault is committed on the premises (or appears to have been committed) the management will immediately ensure that:

·        The police (and, where appropriate, the London Ambulance Service) are called without delay;

·        All measures that are reasonably practicable are taken to apprehend any suspects pending the arrival of the police;

·        The crime scene is preserved so as to enable a full forensic investigation to be carried out by the police; and

·        Such other measures are taken (as appropriate) to fully protect the safety of all persons present on the premises.