Agenda and minutes

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

None.

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 14 July 2021 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the public health submission was not in the report and had just been circulated to members.  The applicant had also not received this submission and the licensing officer invited the licensee’s representative to make comments regarding this.  Further submissions that were circulated were CCTV evidence from the police and policies from the licensee’s representative which included proposed licensing conditions.

The police officer stated that a number of incidents had occurred at the premises and two officer panel meetings had been held to discuss management of the premises.  It had been agreed that the licence holder submit a variation to add conditions to the licence but this had not been submitted.  The police representative reported that conditions had now been agreed with all parties except one relating to SIA door supervisors. The police were asking for at least one door supervisor on Fridays and Saturdays from 7pm until closing time and a risk assessment be carried out for more if required.  The premises were agreeing door supervisors for Saturday only. The police representative reported that there had been a series of incidents and there had been a loss of confidence that the premises could uphold the licensing objectives of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. These were detailed in the papers. Following the Covid lockdown there had been three visits to the premises on the 3, 7 and 9 April where there had been non-compliance with social distancing and the premises were asked to attend an officer panel on the 22 April 2020. The designated premises supervisor was not present on the 7 July. Following further incidents documented in the agenda there was a further panel meeting on the 29 April 2021 and on the 8 May the police met at the premises. On that same day a member of the public called the police to a large scale disturbance from customers outside the premises. On the 25 May staff called the police as customers were refusing to leave and staff could not deal with this issue. Body worn footage of this incident had been circulated and it had also shown the co-owner who appeared to be intoxicated.  There had been a large number of issues and some agreement had been reached. It was considered that these issues would not have occurred if there had been an SIA presence.

In response to questions, it was considered that despite multiple visits things had not improved. In relation to the incidents detailed on CCTV it appeared that drinks had been provided after hours.

The Licensing Authority stated that there was a long history of non-compliance with Covid contraventions. A s80 noise abatement notice had been served in 2019 despite noise conditions on the current licence. She fully supported the need for SIA door supervisors and the extra conditions proposed and fully supported the review by the police. The officer from public health stated that she was in support of the conditions indicated by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 269.

The licensing officer introduced the attendees for this item and stated that copies of the delivery driver reports, a licensing action plan, an expert witness report and video footage had been circulated following publication of the agenda.

The community safety officer reported that complaints relating to delivery driver nuisance had been received since 2017. These included noise nuisance, dangerous driving and intimidating behaviour and even deliveries to McDonalds at the early hours of the morning. 31% of complaints had occurred after 11pm although they did occur all times of the day and night. McDonalds had attended meetings with the council and residents. The introduction of electric bikes and marshals for the outside area were welcomed but marshals had not been effective.  Displacement of this behaviour would also need to be monitored.  The proposals to block Hercules Place were also welcomed although the officer was under the impression that this had already been happening for some time. The Council had arranged workshops and met with delivery drivers. Parking enforcement had carried out joint patrols with the police and dedicated parking spaces had been trialled. The council recently agreed a traffic management order for Hercules Place from 6pm and it appeared that McDonalds were asking for the local authority to do works that had already been discussed and were unattainable. This was by far the most problematic site.  Other sites had been able to manage their drivers so that they did not impact residents. The community safety officer requested that the delivery service be no longer offered or, at the very least, double the number of marshals to manage the area with the other proposals put forward.

The Licensing Authority stated that they had seen the Action Plan and most of the proposals had been tried before and had not worked. Security had been put on the door for a couple of weeks and then had been discontinued. Permanent stewarding of the front door needed to be provided. There should be a system to be able to report drivers to the delivery companies if they misbehaved. This was a  problematic premises and residents were suffering whilst the delivery drivers were not controlled. Officers had worked with the store but still the problems were arising. The police stated that significant efforts had been made to engage with McDonalds.  There was a long history of anti-social behaviour at the venue with no improvement and management needed to improve. Security outside the venue was required to manage delivery drivers which should be SIA security staff rather than venue staff. There was the option of revoking the hours beyond 11pm. It was noted that the moped riders caused the majority of the anti-social behaviour. The police fully supported the application for review.

Councillor Gary Heather, speaking on behalf of the Finsbury ward councillors, stated that McDonalds had not adhered to the four licensing objectives. Many issues were related to after the hours of 11pm although there were also issues throughout the day. The delivery system could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

The licensing officer reported that an additional statement from the licensing holder and an additional statement from the police had been circulated separately.

The police representative reported that on the 25 June three young women stopped off at the venue and staff invited themselves back to their flat nearby.  On the 26 June an ambulance was called by one of the women requiring medical assistance as one of the women had been seriously sexually assaulted by one of the staff members.  A police investigation ensured however, throughout this, the venue seriously undermined the police investigation and revocation was sought for the following key reasons:-

1)   The serious nature of the criminal offence. It is alleged that a member of staff seriously sexually assaulted a female customer. Staff members had drinks at the premises, went back to their flat and later that morning an ambulance was called to a serious sexual assault. One incident alone was sufficient to link the premises to crime and disorder.

2)   The obstruction of investigation by the premises relating to the identity of the suspect. This included active steps taken to obstruct the police by warning off the suspect.  The venue turned a blind eye and did nothing to prevent future crime and disorder. The police knew that staff, including the designated premises supervisor, had been in touch with the suspect.

3)   The owner initially stated he would end the tenancy, however, then decided to give consent to transfer the licence to a company owned by the current designated premises supervisor. His failure to oversee the premises and his active role in attempting to transfer this licence to the same designated premises supervisor showed it was necessary to revoke the licence.

4)   Where crime was involved revocation could be considered as a deterrent, and this was a valid basis to revoke the licence. 

In summary, the premises did not co-operate with the authorities contrary to the licensing objectives and assisted with serious crime leading to a risk of further serious crime which would be addressed with revocation of the licence.

The Licensing Authority stated that this was a very serious incident and the licence holder had taken no responsibility.  Islington premises should be committed to promoting the safety of women and vulnerable people. There had been no demonstration of good management. The premises were serving alcohol to intoxicated customers, obstructing the police and it was recommended that the licence should be revoked. The noise officer reported that there had been a pattern of bad management with a pattern of noise disturbance with complaints from neighbours.  He supported the revocation of the licence.

The licensee’s representative stated that it was disputed that the key person in the investigation was linked to the premises. This was denied and any link to the premises was tenuous. There had been no serious crime on the premises and if anything had happened it had been at the home address.  He had seen nothing to suggest that any staff had been charged  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.