Agenda and minutes

Councillor Ibrahim 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 per the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27^th February 2024 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Licensing Officer was asked to provide updates to the Committee. In response the Licensing Officer advised members that aside from minor additional information, the case was as presented in the agenda papers.

The Licensing Authority and the Police were present as the Responsible Authorities for this application to give their verbal representation to members.

In their representation, the Licensing Authority that their position remained the same as presented in the agenda papers, and that it was their recommendation that the application was considered by the Committee as the licence had only been in effect for six months. The Licensing Authority confirmed that there had been no anti-social behaviour or noise complaints regarding the premises and that it would be for the committee to determine based on the submissions given by the applicant, as to whether the applicants were responsible operators.

The Police stated that their representation was also as per that which was published in the meeting agenda, and that their position was neutral, and that it was for committee to determine whether they were satisfied with the application on balance. The Police further stated that there had been no issues under the current management and that they felt the decision should be taken by the committee instead of delegated. 

There were no interested parties and therefore the Chair moved to ask the applicant to summarise their case. In their representation, the applicant stated that prior to their ownership, the premises’ reputation was not positive and that on assuming ownership and applying to the committee for the current licence in October 2023, it was on the commitment that they would address historical issues and improve the premises to a position of good standing. The applicant stated that they accepted the reduced hours that had been granted and implemented the conditions, and that the premises was now in a position that they could apply for the hours they had originally wanted, which would sustain the business.

The applicant requested that the committee, when deciding whether to grant the hours applied for, considered what they (the applicant) had achieved for live music in both Camden and Islington. It was further stated by the applicant that they had a close working relationship with Camden Council and with other establishments in the area, through which they had set up a “pub watch” group to discuss new legislation, issues in the local area and community initiatives. The applicant stated that while their premises was not busy every night, they had put their policies and procedures to test and it was hoped that the operation of the premises for six months without issue and the lack of representations from residents for this application, would be enough to satisfy the committee to grant the application.

The applicant stated that they had been granted fourteen Temporary Event Notices (TENs) which had each been implemented with no issues and that the closest model of operation for their venue would be the Jazz Café in Camden, which rarely needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

The Licensing Officer was asked to provide updates to the Committee. In response the Licensing Officer stated that aside from the additional information that had been circulated, everything was as submitted in the agenda papers.

The Licensing Authority and the Police were present as the Responsible Authorities for this application to give their verbal representation to members.

The Licensing Authority stated that the application sought to remove conditions that had been imposed at the previous committee on 31^st October 2023, specifically that in relation to selling higher strength beers and miniatures, and the times for delivery, and that while there had not been any reports of noise or nuisance concerning the premises, this was probably due to the robust conditions in place on this licence. The Licensing Authority told the committee that it was their view that the conditions should stay as they were.

The Police stated that for the original licence application, the mitigation of reduced strength alcohol was offered, in which nothing above 20cl bottles would be sold. The Police were willing to allow up to 50cl. The Police told the committee that very small bottles were often purchased by street drinkers and disposed of in nearby parks and that a lot of work had taken place between the Police and ASB team to reduce anti-social behaviour in the Elthorne Park area. The Police stated that they were concerned that there didn’t appear to be mitigation for the additional condition sought and were against the loosening of conditions.

There were no interested parties and therefore the Chair moved to ask the applicant to summarise their case. The applicant stated that they were seeking a level playing field with other premises in the vicinity, which were not subject to the same conditions. The applicant accepted the concerns of the responsible authorities about proliferating the local area with alcoholic products, but that unfair competition was harming the viability of the business, which was only just breaking even.

The applicant told the committee that they had experience running similar establishments for over two decades, in Haringey, Waterloo and abroad, that it was their intention to only sell quality alcoholic products, and that it was not their intention to attract street drinkers.

Members asked the applicant whether they were aware of the other businesses when they acquired the premises and why they accepted the terms of the conditions in October 2023.  In response, the applicant stated that they were seeking to establish their business and what customers wanted, and that in the time they had been operating there had been much competition.

Members of the Committee asked the applicant what the demand for miniatures had been in terms of customer enquiries. In response, the applicant stated that it was not many. 

In response to members’ interpretation of the application that the applicant was seeking the removal of the designated person with knowledge of the licensing regulations, the applicant stated that they were seeking the removal of conditions relating to strength of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

All representations to the application for Quality Wines were withdrawn prior to the meeting and therefore the application was granted under delegated authority and not considered by the committee.

The Licensing Officer was asked to provide updates to the Committee. In response the Licensing Officer stated that there was no additional information and that one representation had been withdrawn.

There were no responsible authorities or interested parties, so the Chair moved to ask the applicant to summarise their case. In response, the applicant stated that the premises had an unusually large garden to the rear, for the area. The applicant stated that present arrangements for customers to purchase drinks was either through table service or going back inside the premises and that this application for an external bar would relieve pressure on the internal bar as well as improving the customer experience.

The applicant stated that they would continue to abide by the conditions on their licence, that the premises was popular and had received no issues or complaints in the time that it had been operating.  The applicant told members that there was no intention to change the style of operation, and their customer base was largely a mature, after-work crowd, that was predominantly female.

Members of the Committee asked the applicant how long they had been operating, inclusive of the external area, to which the applicant advised it had been six months. The applicant stated that in that time they had received feedback to say that it had taken too long to get a drink from the internal bar.

The applicant confirmed that there was no intention of altering the garden in any way to the accommodate the bar other than some tables and chairs and there was no intention to change the model of operation other than providing an additional point of sale. 

The applicant confirmed that they do intend to put screens up for the football, and plans were in place to manage what was anticipated to be a busy period.

.

The applicant confirmed that the external bar was mobile and could be moved by staff if necessary.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Sub-Committee has decided to grant the application for a premises licence variation in respect of The Fence, 67-69 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6BP to:

a.    To vary the layout of the premises in accordance with the new plans submitted.

b.    To add a small external bar in the external area, to sell alcohol and other drinks until 22:00 daily. 

2)    That all licensable activities, permitted hours, opening hours and conditions to remain the same as existing.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was an application for a variation to an existing licence. The application in essence was to amend the planned layout of the premises and to enable the sale of alcohol from a small bar at the back garden of the premises.

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 took into consideration Licensing Policies 2 & 3.  The premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.