Agenda and minutes

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

None.

There were no declarations of substitute members.

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 B2, B1, B3, B4 and B5.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer advised that further conditions had been proposed and circulated to members. He advised that the applicant had reduced the hours requested and was no longer applying to commence the sale by retail of alcohol, off supplies from 07:00 each day during November and December. He stated that the application was in a cumulative impact area. The licensing authority was not asking for the application to be refused but did not consider that the standard opening hours should be waived.

The police stated that the applicant had been asked to provide their cumulative impact zone policy in their application and had not done this. No justification had been made for the hours requested being outside framework hours.

The applicant’s legal representative stated that Marks and Spencer was no longer requesting non-standard timings from 7am in November and December. He explained that usually Marks and Spencer applied to open and sell alcohol from 6am but was requesting 8am due to the premises being in a cumulative impact area and the recognition that there were issues in Archway. However, he stated that 8am was appropriate given the nature and character of Marks and Spencer and the customer base. As an example, he explained that the cost of 2 litres of cider from Marks and Spencer would be £6.80 and as a result Marks and Spencer did not have a problem with street drinkers and his view was that customers should not be disadvantaged by reduced hours. He also advised that the framework hours were guidelines only. To address concerns, he proposed that it could be conditioned that the licence was only valid while the licence was held by Marks and Spencer.

The applicant’s legal representative explained that there were other branches of Marks and Spencer at Finsbury Pavement, Chapel Market and Holloway Road. The Holloway Road branch was closing as part of a programme to close 100 non profitable stores in the next two years and most of the staff would transfer to the Archway branch, therefore the number of stores in the borough would remain the same. He advised that there were no planning conditions restricting deliveries and alcohol was delivered with the rest of the produce on trolleys with rubber wheels to minimise disturbance. Staff would keep the area outside the store clear of litter.

In response to concerns from members about the protection of children from harm, the applicant’s representative commented that Marks and Spencer invested in due diligence and the training of staff, operated a Challenge 25 policy, placed notices on displays, on staff badges and had reminders on till screens when customers bought alcohol. He stated that due to the level of diligence, greater challenge and the pricing of products, underage sales was not an issue faced by the store.

In response to members’ concerns about the quality of the application, the applicant’s representative stated that High Court authority stated that is was the decision of the applicant what to put in the application. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The licensing officer advised the Sub-Committee that the police representation was not an accepted representation and therefore should not have been included the report. However, the applicant had agreed to adopt some of the conditions on page 101 of the report.

Three local residents were in attendance to object to the application. They raised concerns about the narrow residential street, the close proximity of the premises to homes, light pollution from all the lights being left on, a lack of engagement of management and an unwillingness to address concerns, deliveries to the café at 4.30am, concern about the management of the building, concern about weekend opening as this was the only time residents had respite, concern that up to 400 could attend events and they would all leave at the same time and cause problems with noise pollution and taxis with nowhere to park.

A ward councillor was in attendance to object to the application. She advised the Sub-Committee that the building used to be a light industrial building. It was now a co-working space. Concern was raised that the plans to use it for events at the weekend was not appropriate for a residential street and concern was raised about the management who were refusing to engage with residents. Concern was raised about plans for tables and chairs on the street. The councillor advised that additional conditions had been proposed by residents to manage their concerns and regular meetings with the management had been suggested.

In response to questions from members, the residents advised that the building was open 24 hours a day and the earliest deliveries took place was 3.30am with 2-3 vans delivering between 3.30am and 4.30am.

The applicant’s legal representative stated that the reason for the application to show films was to display pre-recorded videos, that the general public would not have access to the building, the management had written to objectors offering to defer the hearing and meet but the objectors had refused. The applicant’s legal representative confirmed the premises would not become a pub or cinema club. He stated that the applicant had provided a comprehensive operating schedule which was policy compliant. He raised concern that the points raised by objectors largely did not refer to licensable activities.

The Head of Food and Beverage at the premises stated that she had joined the business in May 2018. She advised that the premises was primarily a workspace. The licence would mean members could have a drink after work and be served to members holding meetings. She advised that the building was open 24 hours a day as some of the businesses using the workspace were global and dealt with businesses in other time zones. She added that off sales were being requested to prevent people from having to finish a bottle of wine when they did not want to or to enable members to pre-order drinks for events and then take the unused bottles away with them. The applicant was willing for off sales to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The licensing officer stated that at the time the report was written there were representations from responsible authorities but as conditions had been agreed by the applicant, these representations had been withdrawn. He advised that there was a contradiction between Conditions 10 and 26 and that that the Sub-Committee should consider this in their deliberations.

A resident welcomed the conditions agreed by the applicant. However, he raised concerns that there were already problems in the area related to drink and drugs and although these did not specifically relate to Dreamz Cafe, there was concern that another licence being granted would add to the density of licensed premises especially as two new licensed premises had opened nearby. Although the premises was not in a cumulative impact area, it was approximately 30ft from the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park Cumulative Impact Area.

The resident raised concern that the curtilage of the premises extended under his bedroom window and he was concerned about people smoking outside the premises as it led to a passive smoking issue. He stated that policy required that where patrons were outside premises, there should be a plan on how this would be managed and how the nuisance of smoke fumes to residents in close proximity would be prevented.

In response to a member’s questions, the resident stated that his bedroom was at the front of the property, there were no tables and chairs outside generally but there were burger stands on football match days. The resident stated that although this was not pleasant, he had not complained about it as it was only about 20 times per year. He confirmed that he and applicant had not engaged and did not know each other. The chair suggested that as the applicant was now aware of the resident’s concerns, he could try to address them. The applicant agreed to give the resident his mobile phone number so the resident could contact him in the event of any problems.

The applicant advised the Sub-Committee that he had bought the premises in May 2018. On match days he cooked burgers outside and put out tables and chairs. He agreed that there were issues with drugs in the area but these were not related to his café. There were other restaurants also offering food and drink including alcohol outside their premises.

The applicant stated that he would not be selling alcohol for the whole period he was requesting as the café closed at 3pm or 4pm most days. The hours would enable him to sell alcohol when he was selling burgers before and after football matches which often happened in the evening.

In response to a question from a member, the applicant stated that he would comply with the match day conditions.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Dreamz Café, 4 Hornsey Road, London, N7 7BP be granted

1)         To allow the sale by retail of on sales with off sales of alcohol only to outside tables  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The licensing officer advised that the rear garden had been included on the plan for illustration purposes only. The licence would only be applicable to sales within the building.

There were no objectors present.

The applicants stated that they had bought the premises in September 2018. It was proposed that alcohol would only be sold ancillary to a meal. There was no intention of using the garden.

The chair asked the applicant to respond to the objector’s concerns and the applicants advised that they had 5 years’ experience of running restaurants, they both held a personal licence and the premises would be a fish and chip shop.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Seveni, 380 Caledonian Road, N1 1DY be granted

1)         To allow the sale by retail of alcohol, on supplies only, from 12:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday; and

2)         The premises to be open to the public from 12:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday.

Conditions detailed on pages 171 to 174 of the agenda would 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 fell within the Kings Cross cumulative impact area.  Licensing Policy 3 created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant could demonstrate in the operation schedule that there would 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 that the hours sought were within the hours specified in Licensing Policy 6.

The Sub-Committee concluded that although the premises were in a cumulative impact area, the applicant had demonstrated commitment to a high standard of management in the operating schedule and at the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing. The style of the premises and the absence of off sales made it unlikely that there would be a negative impact on the licensing objectives and it was proportionate and appropriate to the licensing objectives to grant the licence.

The applicant’s legal representative explained that the applicant had owned the premises for 3 years. It was a warehouse which provided space for the coffee roastery, coffee shop, drinks laboratory and coffee school. The applicant had been roasting coffee since 2010 and the Lamb Works had recently been established as the Caravan headquarters. The applicant was looking to hold community events. The café had a maximum of 50 covers and it was anticipated that only 5% of sales would be alcohol.

I applicant’s legal representative stated that there had been one representation which related to noises and smells and this had been dealt with through the planning process. He explained that this was a small scale application, alcohol sales would be ancillary to the main business, the application was outside the cumulative impact area and there would be no external seating.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Caravan, Lamb Works, North Road, N7 9DP be granted

1)         To allow the sale by retail of alcohol, on and off supplies, from 10:00 until 22:30 Monday to Sunday, and from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day;

2)         The provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 on New Year’s Eve to 05:00 on New Year’s Day; and

3)         The premises to be open from 08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday and from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

The conditions detailed on pages 207 - 209 of the agenda would 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 Policy 4.  The Council had adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Licensing Policy 4 created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused or subject to certain limitations, following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant could demonstrate in the operation schedule that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

One local resident objection had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in Licensing Policy 6.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the operation of the premises was within a warehouse and the premises to be licensed were a small part of the overall area. The premises were essentially coffee led, having a coffee roastery and coffee school as part of their operation and the conditions suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The licensing officer reported that the statement of case by the applicant had been sent to members.

There were no objectors present at the hearing.

The applicant explained that the café was in Finsbury Square and the council was the freeholder. The café had a very old premises licence and so the applicant had put in a new one to have it updated.

The applicant stated he had written to the applicant but had had no response.

RESOLVED:

That the new premises licence in respect of Chalana, Community Gardens, Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1HD be granted

1)         To allow the addition of off sales for all currently authorised hours i.e. Mondays to Saturdays from 10:00 until 23:00 and Sundays from 12:00 until 22:30; and

2)         To replace the current premises licence conditions with those conditions as laid out within Annex A of the submitted application. These conditions could also be found at Appendix 4 of the officer report.

Conditions detailed on pages 239 and 240 of the agenda would 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 fell within the Bunhill cumulative impact area.  Licensing Policy 3 created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant could demonstrate in the operation schedule that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 4.  The Council had adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Licensing Policy 4 created a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which were likely to add to the existing cumulative impact would normally be refused or subject to certain limitations, following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant could demonstrate in the operation schedule that there would be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

One local resident objection had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities and it appeared that the licensing authority had encouraged the variation application. As explained by the applicant, the variation application was to update the existing premises licence and bring it in line with its current practice. As a result of the application, appropriate and updated conditions, satisfactory to the Responsible Authorities were replacing the old conditions on the licence. In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee accepted that the applicant rebutted the presumption in Licensing Policies 3 and 4.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.