Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Angelo Weekes 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 Ben Mackmurdie for the meeting and Councillor Heather Staff for Item B1. 

Councillor Angelo Weekes substituted for Councillor Heather Staff for Item B1.  Councillor Bashir Ibrahim substituted for Councillor Ben Mackmurdie for the meeting.

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. The Sub-Committee noted that Item B3 and the matter of urgent business had been withdrawn from the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2023 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

All parties to the application introduced themselves.

The licensing officer reported that additional papers from the applicant had been circulated to the interested parties and the Sub-Committee members.

Residents spoke in objection to the application. One resident stated that there had been a delay in consultation and residents had not been given time to respond to additional papers.  There had been a previous application which was refused and subsequently appealed.  There was a concern that this was a second application in the absence of an appeal decision. He considered that there was clear advice that this application did not fall within Class E and was therefore unlikely to comply with planning policy. This operation would stray well beyond the hours permitted in terms of the planning consent. A second resident stated that they had enjoyed the quiet amenity of the neighbourhood with no disruption. Residents had less than five working days to make a response to the application and planning concerns had not been addressed.  The applicants had stated that they were interested in the local community and neighbourhood but had not spoken to residents about the application. Residents had concerns regarding condition 2 that implied that the premises would be open to anyone booking a private event in advance. The resident also raised concerns that the terminal hour of 10.30pm would go well beyond the planning condition that was set for 7pm.

Three residents spoke in support of the application. One resident stated that the applicant had been involved with many community projects and this was a meticulously planned new business. It was considered that this would attract Islington residents to the business. One resident stated that, with this application he would feel less isolated, and he would be more connected to people in his local neighbourhood. He would be able to spend more time in the area, meet his local community and also use the gym in the premises. He had been to one of the events that had been held and it had been well run. The third resident stated that this would give people the chance to meet new people in the area and also offered a chance for investment in the area.

In response to questions, one resident stated that he had attended a resident meeting that had been held at very short notice. Only some residents had received invitations and he considered that the applicant had not communicated with the community. One resident considered that the lack of planning consent was a material consideration to the application. In response, the legal advisor to the Sub-Committee stated that a lack of planning consent was not a reason to refuse the application. Any enforcement, if necessary, would be taken by the Planning Department and a licensing hearing was held to ensure that the application promoted the licensing objectives. Residents in support considered that this would be a place to bring people together and for local people, who had not been born in the area, to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The meeting was adjourned for five minutes at 8.05pm for a changeover of members of the Sub-Committee.

The licensing officer reported that the hours had been amended and were now detailed in paragraph 1.2 of the report.  Additional papers had been circulated from a local resident which included a number of conditions. The hours, as amended, were in line with the planning consent hours for the use of the market.

Two local residents spoke in objection to the application. One resident stated that this would create significant noise nuisance in a space that was not suitable. Flats with their bedrooms and sitting rooms overlooked the space. Flats were not built to standards that would withstand amplified music and an impact assessment from the applicant had not been provided. Events held before Christmas were loud and noise levels had not been lowered. Residents had to live with quite unsuitable levels of noise. Restaurants could already serve alcohol outside their premises in that space. The market was currently running on Saturdays only and they did not consider that the applicant required a blanket licence. Residents asked that the licence be a specific licence and linked to the farmers market in order that the licence could not be used if the market was not held.  A second resident stated that the developers wanted to develop the area into a mini-Kings Cross but this was not the correct location as there was only one road. The restaurants were able to sell alcohol on their tables outside so there was no need for further alcohol to be sold. There was no sound proofing in the buildings. The developer needed to work with residents.

In response to questions, the residents stated that there had been no engagement regarding this application. Residents had sought independent acoustic advice and had asked the applicant to reduce noise levels but had received no response. The flats had been built with a low-grade window system. Residents had raised concerns about noise and had been informed that this was a one-off event. However, they had also been informed that the security team were told to ignore their concerns and this did not give them faith in the developer. They would not be happy to have to report noise and complain about issues. This was not the same type of location as granary square and flats and houses nearby did not have acoustic glazing.

The applicant’s representative stated that modest hours had been applied for and had been amended to reflect the planning consent. There had been a temporary event, which was a carol service, which was louder than they would have liked. This ran from 5.45pm to 7.30pm. Films and regulated entertainment had been withdrawn from the application. The application would be subject to conditions and could be reviewed which could impact the deregulation of licensable activities. The hours requested were modest, the conditions extensive and the application had been revised following the comments made.

In response to questions, it was noted that the planning consent allowed markets on Fridays to Sundays. Hours and restrictions, as agreed through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.