Agenda and minutes

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

There were no apologies for absence.

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 as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 5 March 2019 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that additional information had been circulated.  Photographs had been removed from the agenda as had been requested.  The premises had been closed for two weeks for sound insulation works to be undertaken.

The licensing authority stated that the premises were in a cumulative impact area and it was expected that licensees would demonstrate high standards of management.  The application would allow a pub style venue if granted.  The temporary event notices had been used for the year.  The licensee had put forward a detailed operating schedule.  The licensing authority agreed that there was a need for a well-run pub in the area but considered that all works should be completed to ensure protection for residents. There was a fully functioning kitchen and food could be available at all times.  A reduction in hours to framework hours could be considered.  The Sub-Committee needed to be convinced that the licensee understood what is acceptable.

The interested party stated that this was the second variation application in just over a month. The applicant had not demonstrated a high standard of management.  The noise team had witnessed contraventions.  It was considered inconceivable that there would be no cumulative impact if food was not required with alcohol.  Photos had been taken of customers outside with no food and it was stated that the licensee would not comply with his responsibilities.  Drink promotions had been advertised and these would inevitably lead to drunkenness and anti-social behaviour issues. The interested party had received an abusive phone call and the police had stated that it had been linked to the premises.  This raised serious concerns about the applicant. There had been an incident towards the end of April where the premises had been very noisy.  The resident had been unable to contact the noise team and approached the bar.  The designated premises supervisor (dps) had blamed the resident for having no carpet in his flat, which he did have.  Rather than apologising, the dps had blamed the resident.  It was considered that the licensee put profit before the licensing objectives. It was not considered there was a shortage of bars; there were 30 within one mile. It was in the public interest to have good responsible bars but the applicant was not able to abide by restrictions to the licence and it should be rejected.

The licencee’s representative stated that the management of the premises and the cumulative impact had been considered at the last application.  The noise team was now satisfied.  The licensing authority had highlighted the cumulative impact.  At the last application, the management team were in transition. The designated premises supervisor had run bars for the last 20 years and he was unproven at the time. Following numerous visits by the police and licensing team there had been no complaints. The resident had taken photographs of customers without food but it was stated that you could go in any restaurant and take photographs similar to this between courses.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The licensing officer advised that additional material had been circulated to members and some CCTV from the 5 November would be shown to members.

The police officer reported that he had worked for Islington for two years and had never seen this level of violence at a venue.  He considered that the venue undermined three licensing objectives; the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm.  There had been a violent incident in November and males had been seen fighting with planks of wood and sticks.  The police had tried to engage with the designated premises supervisor on a number of occasions and on each visit a number of breaches of conditions had been highlighted but there had still been no improvement.  Breaches had not been minor and included the lack of CCTV and ID data. He considered that the levels of violence were increasing. An agreement to limit hours was reached in October 2018 but a further incident took place in November 2018 with violence both inside and outside. There was also an incident where the door supervisor considered that there had been inappropriate touching and this should have been investigated by the police.  The CCTV showed that there were a large number of males outside the premises drinking from bottles.  The hours had already been reduced, he had zero confidence in the designated premises and sought revocation.

The licensing authority stated that the premises licence had been previously reviewed.  A decision was taken through a consent order because of previous assurances.  There were significant breaches of conditions.  The licensee had been invited to a PACE interview in February 2019.  The designated premises supervisor (DPS) denied knowledge of the changes to the licence although the barrister had made it clear that these changes had been fully discussed with the licensee.   Since the previous review there had been 7 reported incidents, 6 of these had been witnessed, there was no CCTV, activity after licensed hours and noise nuisance. There was an incident, following the review application on the 26 June, where tables and chairs had been thrown around. Management should be aiming at a very high level and the licensing authority considered that there was no other alternative to support revocation.

The Sub-Committee noted that a S 19 notice had not been served although it had been considered.

The noise officer reported that sound insulation works had been carried out and there had been fewer noise complaints.  However, there had been four complaints since April so noise nuisance was still occurring.

The public health officer reported that there was a concentration of ambulance related callouts in the area around this premises and in the early hours of the morning. It was accepted that this could not be linked to the premises as names had not been given to the police.

In response, it was noted that the previous late licence had been restricted in hours following a review of the licence in March  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.