Venue: The link to the Zoom meeting is below. If you prefer to join the meeting by phone please dial 0208 080 6591 and enter meeting ID : 940 8109 0333 when prompted
Contact: Jackie Tunstall 020 7527 3068
Introductions and procedure
Councillor Phil Graham welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves. The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.
Apologies for absence
Declarations of substitute members
Declarations of interest
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.
Order of Business
The order of business would be as the agenda.
That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2021 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.
The licensing officer confirmed that the unit was contained within the B1 element of the building and so therefore planning permission would not be required.
A local resident raised concerns regarding the timing and the noise from deliveries. Deliveries during the week had taken place at 6am in the morning and vehicles had blocked the entrance to the residents parking area and the road. He had suggested conditions and considered that the applicant should not make any additional noise from the operation. He had proposed restricting deliveries from 9 until 4 pm on weekdays and that deliveries should not block the entry/exit. He asked that drivers obey the Highway Code and also proposed a condition that no deliveries would take place on religious or national events.
In response to a comment from the Sub-Committee it was noted that security to the residents’ car park would be the responsibility of the freeholder.
The applicant stated that this was an on-line delivery business with no public access. Orders were made from an app and there was a ten minute delivery time from the time of order. No internal combustion engines would be used and this was conditioned. The applicant stated that he would be happy to support car park security from the freeholder if the resident wished. A contact number could be provided and deliveries would not be made on Sundays. Most of the deliveries would be in small vans but one larger truck, which could not get into the loading bay, would be required once a day. This vehicle could pull to the side of Herbal Hill with minimal noise and would be unloaded which would take no more than 20 minutes.
In response to questions related to noise, it was noted that trolleys that were used could have rubberised wheels and the applicant would liaise with the resident regarding the noise from the loading bay. Deliveries from the big truck were allocated within a time slot and the applicant stated that they could make this a regular time slot. Staff on smoking breaks could be moved to Clerkenwell Road. Each driver was responsible for their own order. The big delivery vehicle was used to provide frozen stock which came in large chillers. If the larger vehicle could not pull into Herbal Hill and was unable to park safely they would have to be sent away.
In summary, the resident stated that the deliveries were a big concern and if time slots were limited to the hours of 9am to 3pm that would be a huge benefit to residents. He was still concerned about the noise from the loading bay and he considered that the conditions he had proposed were not unreasonable.
1) That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Gorilla’s Technologies, 95 Farringdon Road, EC1 be granted to allow:-
a) The sale of alcohol, off supplies only, Monday to Sunday from 8am until midnight.
b) The premises to have the following operating hours:- Monday to ... view the full minutes text for item 259.
The licensing officer reported that two resident representations had been received. The applicant had written to them and one was now happy with the application but no response had been received from the other resident. The applicant had offered to meet with this resident. There had been an additional bundle from the applicant summarising the application sent to the Sub-Committee.
The Licensing Authority had received a revised condition relating to the outside area and was happy to withdraw with the amended wording to condition 26.
The applicant stated that this was a restaurant with normal hours and was not alcohol led. Conditions had been agreed with Trading Standards, Police, Environmental Health and the Licensing Authority and was compliant with the licensing objectives. Two representations had been received from interested parties. One resident was happy with the information that had been provided. Resident two had been provided with additional information and all conditions, the witness statement and a petition in support. He considered that all points had been addressed and the licence would not negatively impact on the area. This was a restaurant/café with modest hours. As the resident was not present they were unable to ask about their concerns but all the information provided should alleviate these.
In response to questions it was noted that there would be table service, alcohol would be sold with food, was a small part of the offer and there would be no vertical drinking. They wished to offer alcohol to those customers who wanted it with lunch and dinner. The applicant stated that they would be operating Challenge 25 and when questioned gave full details of how Challenge 25 would be operated.
In summary, the Licensing Authority informed the Sub-Committee that the plans submitted did need to be updated and a fire risk assessment needed to be carried out.
The applicant stated that the floor plans had been finalised and could be sent to the Licensing team shortly. They had recently operated under a Temporary Events Notice. They had wanted to wait until the 19 July to ascertain the latest Covid restrictions before finalising the layout but this was now able to be provided.
1) That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Neza Bar Café, 296 Holloway Road, N7 6NJ be granted to allow:-
a) To allow the sale of alcohol, on supplies only, Monday to Saturday from 11am until 11pm and from 12 noon until 11pm on Sunday.
b) The premises to be open to the public, Monday to Saturday from 6am to 11.30pm and Sunday from 8am to 11.30pm
2) Conditions detailed on pages 87 to 89 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following amendments:-
· Condition 26 to read. Customers must not consume food or drinks outside or in the vicinity of the premises, unless in an external seating area permitted by Islington Council;
· The submission of an updated premises plan to include the location of all fire safety equipment.
REASONS FOR ... view the full minutes text for item 260.
The licensing officer reported that the application had been amended as follows:-
The extension of hours until 01:00 on Friday and Saturday.
The amendment of conditions as follows:-
Condition 1 to read:- No beers, lagers or ciders of above 6% abv shall be sold on the premises, save for premium bottled beers agreed in advance with the police or licensing authority.
Condition 2 to remain on the licence.
Condition 3 to be removed.
Following these amendments the police had withdrawn their representation however the resident had not engaged further with the licensing team.
The Licensing Authority stated that the licensee had been at the premises only for a short time, since November 2020. There had been no details given for mitigation in this area. She stated that the representation was maintained and the applicant could explain how the application would not add to the cumulative impact.
The applicant stated that he wished to provide local residents with a can of beer up until 1am. There were not many local stores that were open at this time due to the pandemic. They had received a positive resident representation.
In response to questions there would be three people in the store until 1am for staff safety. They wished to give residents an option to purchase food products or alcohol at that time of day. Some residents just required a single can of beer. They would not stock super strength alcohol that might appeal to street drinkers but wished to stock premium or beers from local brewers to give residents an option. They had got to know the local residents and what they want from their store. There was another local store nearby that closed at 11pm.
The Licensing Authority did not consider that the application had explained how they would not add to the problems that arose from selling alcohol at that time of day. They did not seem to understand the problems that were in a cumulative impact area and why the policy had been brought in.
The applicant stated that they had been in Islington for 15 years. They wished to serve local professional residents and did not think they would create more crime. They managed the premises well and received positive feedback from residents.
That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Alternative Supermarket, 360 Essex Road, N1 be refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
This meeting was facilitated by Zoom.
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 premises concerned is a shop with an off sales licence. The licence was granted in November 2020. The application was to vary the licence, merely six months after it had been granted. The variation, following amendments to increase the licensable hours by two hours to 1am on Fridays and Saturdays.
In addition the licensee applied ... view the full minutes text for item 261.
The licensing officer reported that planning permission would be required if the premises was a takeaway. The applicant had stated that it was proposed to be primarily used as a restaurant.
The Licensing Authority stated that the hours were outside licensing policy framework hours. If the application was for a restaurant the framework hours were until midnight. The applicant had not explained why these hours were required and had not addressed the cumulative impact policy. The applicant managed the neighbouring premises and should this licence be granted it would double the trade within a small area. She stated, that in response to an email sent by the applicant’s representative which had stated that this was an experienced and responsible manager, she raised concerns regarding good management standards in that a fixed penalty had been served on the neighbouring premises in October 2020 under Covid restrictions. The premises had been visited several times by council officers before it had been served. They had not stated the link with the next door premises in the original application. If the premises was to be operated as a take away the hours were outside framework hours and would be even more so if it was operated as a restaurant.
The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant operated a small fast food restaurant with 20 seats upstairs next door to this premises. He had been at the premises for over ten years. The fixed penalty notice occurred when a member of staff was serving food at the door. The fine was paid immediately and the individual was dismissed. The applicant was committed to working with all the responsible authorities and conditions had been agreed with the police and the noise team. A licence could be granted if there were exceptional circumstances. This was not an application for alcohol but for late night refreshment. He raised concerns that the email regarding the fine from the Licensing Authority had only been sent the day before and he had not had a chance to respond. The applicant stated the licensing team had called at the premises on a day he was not working and after two weeks had sent a penalty fine. He had paid immediately and after that had closed before 11pm. He apologised for the penalty and said that many people had been confused over the Covid resgulations. This was a one off incident and the member of staff had been dismissed.
In response to questions it was reported that training would be given to all staff regularly every three months. The applicant knew the local residents and would provide a contact telephone number. This was a good location for workers such as the police, railway workers and cab drivers who would prefer to eat in a restaurant after work rather than have a takeaway. The premises next door had two managers, one during the day and one at night, 3 staff on the counter and two in the kitchen. Approximately 7 or 8 staff. It ... view the full minutes text for item 262.