Agenda and minutes

Councillor Alex Diner welcomed everyone to the meeting, asked members and officers to introduce themselves and outlined the procedures for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor Khan.

Councillor Picknell substituted for Councillor Khan.  Councillor Smith substituted for Councillor Spall for Item B2.

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.

Councillor Picknell declared an interest in Item B1 as St Mary’s ward councillor. She had not had any involvement with the application.

The order of business was as the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 2 June 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the applicant had written to the responsible authorities and agreed all conditions with the exception of condition 9 and 13 as tabled.  These papers would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The police reported that this application was over a year old and during the year 2013/14 there had been nearly 3500 reported crimes in the area.  There were over 30 restaurants in the cumulative impact area. The applicant had not considered the cumulative impact area in their application or stated how they would deal with off sales. The police had requested more information a year ago but had not heard from the applicant.  This was an area that had a very busy late night economy and premises would need to show strong management. He agreed that he would accept a condition for off sales to be only the wine drunk with the meal if the application was not refused.

The noise officer stated that he did not support the proposed amendment of condition 13 by the applicant and the one submitted by the noise team was more robust. They would require off sales to be in sealed containers.

A local resident spoke against the application.  She raised concerns about urination and vomiting in doorways, late night drinking and general nuisance.  The restaurant appeared to have been closed for six weeks and it was assumed by residents to have been unsuccessful.  The previous occupier, the art gallery, closed early. 

The applicant stated that there were four restaurants in the chain, one at Wimbledon village in a saturation zone.  There would be no loud music and hours sought were as proposed in the licensing policy. The offering was for fine dining.  Two floors only would be used for licensable activities.  They would sell specialist wines and a couple of beers.  They had robust management and training policies. They stated that the CCTV condition should be for 28 days and not 60 as stated.  They had used the quieter summer months to carry out refurbishment works in the premises. Alcohol was not part of the business plan but the agent considered they would have greater control if a licence was granted. Patrons could currently bring in lagers, cheap wine and spirits. They served fresh food and had not experienced problems in other branches. He disagreed that there be no off sales but agreed that alcohol be taken away in sealed containers.

In response to questions the agent considered that a licence would add control over the sale and consumption of alcohol. They had robust policies regarding CCTV, staff training and would join a pubwatch scheme. They were not aware that the area was a cumulative impact area when the application was made and did not know why it would be a cumulative impact area. When the application had been made, alcohol had not been their policy and the agent had been employed to expand the business. He was aware of the policy and trained staff in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The applicant reported that Nisa had 2500 retail stores nationally.  They had forty years experience in the retail trade.  All staff were uniformed and professional.  This was not an independent store. Historical issues regarding the premises had been discussed with the police and conditions agreed.  The police had suggested that because of the previous history, security be onsite for six months to give confidence to the community.  The company were willing to invest in this and considered it would be an asset for the area.

In response to questions the applicant reported that he had researched the area and understood the previous problems.  This would be their third premises.  They had been vetted by Nisa and had met their standards.  This was their first application for this premises. The area was in need of a local shop.  In their other premises, alcohol was 40% of revenue and was an important factor in the business. Other shops were in Suffolk and Sussex although they had previously traded in Stoke Newington so had London experience. They felt that the uniforms and professional environment would deter trouble. It was noted that the licensee was currently away on holiday.  It was noted that there would be a personal licence holder on site at all times and not the premises supervisor as stated in the operating schedule. Due to concerns from the police about street drinking, licensing hours were amended to start from 9am and high strength alcohol would not be sold.

In summary, the applicant stated that they would be in regular contact with the police and Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

RESOLVED

a) That the application for a new premises licence in respect of 89-91 Holland Walk, N19 3XU be granted to permit the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises from 10:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and from 10:00 to 22:30 on Sunday.

Opening hours of the premises to be from 07:00 to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and from 07:00 to 22:30 on Sunday.

b) Conditions as detailed on page 61 and 62 of the agenda, with the following amendment, shall be applied to the licence.

Condition 1 to read.  A personal licence holder shall be on site at all times during the hours permitted for the sale of alcohol.

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 noted that the applicant has previous experience of operating licensed premises both in and outside London.  Staff in this store would be uniformed and professional.  The applicant had discussed the history of the premises with the police and agreed appropriate conditions in response to their concerns. These included a CCTV condition and a limit on high strength alcohol.  The applicant had discussed security with the police and agreed to follow the police recommendation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.