Agenda item

The Licensing Officer reported that an application for a variation of DPS had been received to permit Mr Stefano Del Core to replace Mr Sinan Kurt as DPS.  He also reported that the applicant was not now seeking off sales of alcohol. There were additional conditions which the Licensing Authority wished to see applied to the licence and which had been discussed with and agreed by the applicants, should the Sub-Committee be minded to approve the application.  These had arisen largely as a result of the applicant’s responses to representations made by the Licensing Authority and were detailed on pages 34 and 35 of the agenda.

The Licensing Officer also reported that a certificate of lawfulness under Section 191-2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) was pending, though he had been copied into correspondence between the applicant and the Council’s Building Control Services, which satisfied him that this particular matter was being progressed.

In response to questions, the Police Officer reported that he had been impressed with the way the applicants had engaged with the Police and confirmed that the majority of the outstanding documentation referred to on page 40 of the agenda, comprising the representation from the Islington Police Licensing Team, had now been received. The Police Officer stated that, in view of the history of crime and disorder reported at the premises in the past, he was working with the applicants to ensure that this did not happen in the future.

The Noise Team representative stated that a copy of the calibration certificate supplied by an acoustician and the Noise Management Plan for the premises were awaited.  The applicant stated that these documents had been posted to the Council’s Noise Team on the preceding Friday.

The applicants responded to Members’ questions about the management of access to the first and second floors of the building, capacity limits on each floor of the building and how that was to be managed, controlling the flow of persons outside the venue and access to and capacity of the designated smoking area .

Members of the Sub-Committee left the room at 6.58pm to deliberate before returning at 7.10pm to announce their decision.

RESOLVED:

(a) That the application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Best Mangal Bar & Restaurant/Club Reina, 85 Charterhouse Street EC1M 6HJ be granted to:

i)      remove conditions 16,18,25, 28 and 29 of the current premises licence in so far as they apply to the ground floor of the premises

ii)     amend the floor plans attached to the current premises licence.

(b) That the conditions detailed in appendix 3 of the report and the following conditions be attached to the licence:

That the ground floor be used solely as a restaurant

That no more than 10 smokers at a time be permitted in the designated smoking area

That capacity checks be recorded in writing hourly

That a minimum of two personal licence holders be on duty at all times

The premises may not be used until signed off by a Building Control Officer

The conditions suggested by the Police shall be included in the schedule of conditions

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all of 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 application was for a variation of an existing licence.

The present owners purchased the premises in November 2013. The premises consisted of 3 floors and the application was to remove 5 conditions from the current licence as they apply to the ground floor of the premises and to amend the floor plans.

The Sub-Committee considered the representations made by the Licensing Authority, the Police and the Noise Team, as well as representations made by the applicant.

At the hearing, the Licensing Authority requested additional conditions to those originally referred to in the papers.

The additional conditions were agreed to by the licensee.

The Sub-Committee considered whether the proposed variation with the proposed conditions would impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives and concluded that they should not have an adverse effect.

The variation was accordingly agreed.