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.

None.

There were no 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 Item B2, B1 and B3.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2023 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer stated that additional papers had been circulated. It was noted that there was a current live planning application for a change of use to a restaurant and public house. This had not been withdrawn. Planning officers had advised that the use of the rear yard would be in breach of the s106 agreement and Planning would need to take enforcement action.

One resident stated that he had concerns about alcohol sales and that they should be ancillary to a table meal. The change of use would need a planning application. The planning application had not been withdrawn and so contradicted the current licensing application. There had been a previous unlawful use as a public house and there had been noise disturbance to residents. The operating schedule did not show how the premises would be managed. Amplified music would be entirely inappropriate given the residential area. The hours sought were outside framework hours. There should be conditions to protect residents which would include a limit to framework hours, no amplified music, a programme of sound insulation, conditions related to dispersal and alcohol to be served to seated and indoor patrons only. A second resident stated that the premises had always operated as a restaurant and was in a cumulative impact area. A glass conservatory had been added at the rear at the premises but with no noise mitigation. They asked that this licence be as restrictive as the original. The building was wholly unsuitable to play amplified music and sound insulation work would need to be carried out. The use of the rear area should not be considered. A telephone number from the applicant had been refused. A third resident stated that a new planning application had been submitted for a restaurant/public house. The applicant should withdraw that planning application if that is no longer the intention. The ward councillor stated that it was not clear what the intention of the application was. It had been proposed to have a late night bar but this had now been amended. He read out a number of suggested conditions that should be imposed. These included alcohol sales to be ancillary to a table meal, that there be no vertical drinking, that hours reduced to framework hours, the prohibition of the use of the rear yard, that windows should remain closed after 9pm except for access and egress, that a limit of six smokers be permitted to stand outside and that hours for bottling out be restricted.

In response to questions, it was noted that the previous licence had only four conditions. The residents stated that there had been a lack of engagement from the applicant and they had tried to engage with the applicant but this had not been successful.

The applicant stated that the application was for the premises to be used as a pizzeria restaurant. Following the concerns raised, the hours had been reduced, conditions had been agreed with the responsible authorities and they had withdrawn their representations.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The Licensing Officer reported that there were representations from the police and the noise team which had been withdrawn following conditions being agreed. The applicant had further proposed an on-sale time of 10.30pm to allow drinking up time. Music would be background only and therefore recorded music had been withdrawn. He informed the Sub-Committee that there had been two applications made on the same day for the same site but they were both very different in scope.

A planning officer was in attendance to respond to questions about the planning consent.  He advised that an air conditioning unit on the roof was subject to planning control. The hours requested for this application were beyond the hours granted for the air conditioning unit however, he had been advised that the premises would not connect to these units. He advised that planning and licensing were separate frameworks and an approved licensing application would not prevent a breach of planning. In response to a question, it was reported that applicants often proposed the hours of use for mechanical plant but planning would apply an appropriate decibel level.

One local resident stated that if the application was for a deli, coffee shop with alcohol ancillary to food, the planning use would remain in Class E. However, he had concerns that only small plates were being provided and no hot food. There was a large area indicating storage of alcohol with no food preparation area and he considered that alcohol would not only be ancillary. He was concerned that the main use would be for a wine bar and planning would be required for a change of use. The hours of opening extended well past the hours permitted by the current planning consent and he considered that residents would be asked to monitor the premises. Other deli cafes in Islington offered a far greater food offering. A second resident raised concerns regarding the planning condition. The planning officer took into consideration the close proximity to residential accommodation and restricted the hours of use for the air conditioning unit to 8am to 6pm. He considered this application to be in breach of these hours. There had been no mention of sound insulation in the premises. This was a quiet residential area and he asked that the application should be refused. A third local resident reiterated that this was a densely residential area. The property looked over a number of social and privately owned flats. Any venue would bring considerable noise and disturbance and the elderly and vulnerable particularly would be impacted. The air conditioning unit was not currently turned off at 6pm and residents would like this condition to be enforced. It was considered that this was an unsuitable building for an alcohol licence and wished that residential amenity be maintained.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant who stated that her intention was for the business to be a café/deli with alcohol as an option. She would not be serving alcohol after 10.30pm, she would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

The licensing officer reported that no further information had been received.  There were no residents present at the meeting.

The Licensing Authority stated that this had been a confused application and now the hours requested were for the sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment until 10pm each day with late night refreshment until 2am.  There was insufficient information given to explain how the premises would be operated. The premises was in a very busy area cumulative impact area and the applicant had not explained how they would deal with issues. The Police stated that they had liaised with the applicant once the application was submitted as it was a confusing application which exceeded framework hours. They were unable to agree on the late-night refreshment hours and he asked that members question the applicant to satisfy themselves regarding the excess hours. This area was extremely busy and the applicant had no mitigation to prevent anti-social behaviour.

The business partner and owner attended the meeting. He stated that he had run similar premises in Newcastle and Edinburgh until 2 and 3am. They had initially wanted live singers but after speaking to the Police had decided against this. They wished to offer hot food for Chinese students and the late hours were intended for the take away part of the business. They had spoken to students who could not find anywhere to eat after 12 am. The business partner was living above the restaurant and there was a lot of noise in the road. Anti-social behaviour was not caused by the restaurant. Their price point was at a slightly higher price than other take aways.

In response to questions, the applicant stated they would be mitigating noise by closing the front door and having a take-away only. There would be online ordering. The back door could be used for delivery and drivers could park away from the premises. The sale of alcohol until 10pm was late enough for the premises. They had decided on this area as the family owned the building and it was therefore a low cost start up. They considered that stopping the sale of alcohol until 10pm would prevent drunk customers. Alcohol would only be served with food and would be sold at a higher price point. Staff would be told how to refuse certain customers. ID would be checked. They would ask patrons who might be a problem to kindly leave the premises. The application for choral music was a mistake and karaoke was not the intention. They found that students were writing essays at midnight and wanted a late takeaway. Students who were drunk would be refused and they would have to call the police if necessary. The rear was a quiet street and they could half close the shutter on the front door. They did not create much noise during cooking and their ventilation system was top of the range. Orders would be mostly through the online platform. He stated that he would ideally use electric  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.