Agenda and minutes

Councillor Heather Staff 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 Councillors Nargund.

Councillor Ibrahim substituted for Councillor Nargund.

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 as the agenda.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2023 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Licensing Officer updated the Sub-Committee. Representation 6 had been withdrawn. There had been some discrepancies with planning, but these seemed to have been resolved and the applicant believes the planning is correct for the use of the premises.

The interested party, a resident objector, spoke against the application and had claimed the applicant did not engage properly with the residents in the vicinity of the premises. The applicant had only sent a letter with a phone number, but the resident had not been able to get through on this line. The resident was concerned with the possibility of an open frontage and the noise this would create if it were to be opened, as the resident lived only 18.5 feet away from the premises. The resident asked the committee if they were to be minded to add a condition to the license in which this open frontage would be closed at a reasonable time in the evening. This would have helped with the noise issue, especially in the narrowest part of the passage.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the resident explained there had been little engagement. The resident also stated they would have no further issue with the granting of the license were the condition on the open frontage to be added.

The applicant explained that they had headed operation of 4 wine bars in total across London and the outer London area. They explained none of these premises had a single incident against the licensing objectives. They responded to concerns over engagement explaining they had contacted the licensing authority about the representations but due to GDPR they were only able to supply an email and telephone number, however they had met with other interested parties that had made representations to come to an agreement. The applicant explained there was not an open frontage, and this was a front door to the premises within the legal requirements to disability legislation. They further explained that many conditions on noise reduction had been proposed already and they were happy to comply to these. There would be table service only and no vertical drinking at the premises and signs would be put up asking patrons to reduce noise when leaving the premises.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the applicant explained they chose this area because of their love for the vibe and energy and the community feel of Camden and Islington. They wanted to bring something new and vibrant to the area. The Sub-Committee had asked about future plans of outdoor seating, the applicant responded that they had been in the process of applying for a pavement license. On concerns of noise disturbance, the applicant explained that all staff had ample training, and this was a ‘wine restaurant’ not a ‘wine bar’ so they had not expected to have a ‘rowdy’ clientele. Staff were also trained to ‘touch tables’ regularly so would be alert to any patrons that may have caused issues. The applicant explained they had a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Licensing Officer updated the Sub-Committee. The hours for sale of alcohol had been amended from 07:00-23:00 7 days a week to 09:00-23:00 7 days a week. With this amendment the Licensing Authority had withdrawn their representation.

The interested party, a member of the Better Archway Forum, presented their case objecting to the license. They had concerns over excessive street drinking in this cumulative impact area, it was intimidating and another premises selling alcohol would increase temptation to vulnerable people. They had more concerns there had not been indication of how alcohol was isolated from customers outside of licensed hours. Residents had feared the sale of alcohol would cause congregation and lingering in the square nearby. There was also not a WC nearby so there had been possibility of public urination. They believed the license should be refused as to not undermine the cumulative impact policy and the great work this had done so far.

The Applicant explained they were a 150-year-old well established business. They had been aware of the issues of the archway area and had consulted with police on this, resulting in a bespoke application for this area to address these concerns. The hours for alcohol sale had been amended to suit the Licensing Authority and the premises did fall within the exception of the policy as an off license selling within framework hours. The premises would not sell high-strength, cheap, single canned or bottled beers or ciders. There would be no self-serving of spirits and these would be kept behind the counter. They clarified that while the application stated a 24 hour operation the operational hours would be 07:00-23:00 with alcohol sold 09:00-23:00.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the applicant explained they wanted to support the local community and fit in, they encouraged community spirit and made charitable donations to communities they operated in. They wanted to open in this area as it was a prominent site in a key location that had been vacant for some time, the location was close to an underground station so they would have got high footfall from commuters and those that live around this area. The Sub-Committee had questions surrounding the possible sale of alcohol before 09:00; the applicant explained this would not be possible as the licensed hours are uploaded to their epos system so alcohol cannot be processed on the till system outside of these hours and cannot be overridden. The applicant regularly worked with the police and other responsible authorities to mitigate concerns of alcoholism and repeat problem customers, there would also regularly be security on site.

In summary the interested party explained that the 07:00-09:00 was not the problem for alcohol it was the lateness it was sold and while there were no single can sales, people could have just bought a big bottle, or a crate of alcohol instead. There was also a Sainsbury’s local nearby, and they felt it was better when all people are local rather than big corporations taking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

ADJOURNED

The Licensing Officer updated the Sub-Committee. There had been an amendment to a condition which had been sent in a bundle by the applicant.

The interested parties including 3 local residents and a member of the Better Archway Forum gave objection to the license. They explained this was a residential area occupied by young families and the elderly. The premises was an office block and the sale and consumption of alcohol was not necessary. The roof terrace on the building overlooks gardens and adjoins the terraced housing surrounding the office block and was therefore invasive and created noise disturbance. Their website had been promoting parties with DJs and alcohol, not just for workers, this would create noise and anti-social behaviour, particularly when people disperse from the premises. There had already been issues with litter and drug misuse in the area, they had not wanted this to get worse. There had also been safety concerns for young families with broken glass on the street and late night parties on Fridays and Saturdays, which they felt were unneeded in a co-working space. The surrounding area already had premises which sold alcohol and they had not wanted the problem of anti-social behaviour to worsen in a cumulative impact area. The resident objectors had likened the noise to ‘like having a nightclub on your doorstep’.

The Sub-Committee asked the Licensing Officer if there had been any formal complaints. The officer said they could not see any objections to previous Temporary Event Notices that had been used in the premises.

The Applicant explained the roof terrace was not included in the license application and they had added a condition to say there could be no private third-party events. The applicant’s representative explained the hours sought were within the framework hours and there would be no Off Sales. They had agreed conditions with the police prior to the hearing, but if there were any repetitive concerns they would work with the police, and these would be dealt with. The applicant emphasised this was still a co-working space and not an alcohol-led business. There had been a dispersal policy submitted explaining how they would mitigate noise concerns and concerns over the dispersal of people leaving the venue. The previous private events had been a way to generate income lost during the Covid-19 pandemic, but the applicant realised that this wasn’t a feasible way to make revenue and did not want to create a bad relationship with residents so had stopped these events. While the co-working space operated 24 hours, there would be no alcohol beyond the licensed hours, and this would be locked away. Each member of the facility also had to sign a contract and pay a security deposit, if they were found in breach of this the deposit would be taken and the contract voided. The applicant and their representative emphasised alcohol would only be ancillary to work related events, such as, conferences and training days.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.