Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gary Poole.

Councillor Wayne substituted for Councillor Poole and Councillor Ward substituted for the vacant position.

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 9 June 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant.

The licensing officer reported that officers visited on the 23 September at 11.41pm and had found the premises serving hot food.  There were also 12 chairs outside the premises instead of the required 8.  The licensee was spoken to about this matter and he stopped serving immediately.  The following weekend there was another visit and the premises were found to be complying with their licence.

The licensing authority reported that the hours requested were within the framework hours outlined in licensing policy 8.

A local resident who spoke against the application stated that the terminal hour should be midnight during the week and 11pm on Sunday.  She had seen six tables outside the premises which the resident did not think were covered by licence. The licensing officer clarified that the premises had authorisation for four tables and 8 chairs outside the premises which were to be cleared at 11pm.

The applicant’s representative reported that an application had been submitted about a month ago which had been ill prepared and had longer hours.  This had been refused.  This revised application was more in keeping with the licensing policy and was within framework hours.  The premises would not be serving alcohol.  The police and the licensing authority had not put in any objection.  The licensee had applied for temporary event notices over the past three months.  On the evening that hot food was found to be served after hours, the premises had a sudden influx of customers after 11pm and orders had been taken. 

In response to questions it was noted that after 11pm the premises was just a take away and tables and chairs would be removed.  Trading after hours on that occasion was just a one off.  Staff had been trained and would not serve people who were drunk.  The premises had been operating for six months and there had been no issues with either this or the next door premises which was also owned by the applicant.  On the evening that they had been operating after hours, customers had made their order before 11pm and the restaurant had just been completing these orders.  This had been the only issue in the six months of ownership.  Tables and chairs were removed 10 minutes before 11pm.  It was noted that the applicant also operated La Forchetta, the next door premises and had no issues.  The applicant’s representative stated that he was a qualified trainer and would train all staff.  They did consider employing a door supervisor but the premises was very small and so one was not considered necessary.  The licensee could call on Dirty Martini if there were any issues.  There were plans to employ additional staff between 11pm and 1am.  The licensee was very experienced.

In summary, the local resident reported that she had seen more tables outside than they were allowed.  She thought that customers could be sold alcohol from the neighbouring premises.  She considered that the hours requested were outside the policy.  The licensing officer clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

The trading standards officer submitted an update that would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The trading standards officer reported that the new licence holder had worked at the premises during the seizure made in 2012.  He became the licence holder in January 2016 and was managing the premises during the seizure in April 2016.  He reported that, since the application had been made there had been an improvement.  He asked that if the Sub-Committee considered that the licensee was unlikely to attain the high standards expected of a manager, he would ask that the licence be revoked.  If the Sub-Committee considered that the improvement would be maintained he recommended suspension as a deterrent for other businesses. 

In response to questions the trading standards officer considered that the alcohol had been non duty paid rather than counterfeit.  No documents had been produced and the licensee stated that they had been purchased when he was not in the shop.  Trading standards had carried out one check on the premises since 2012 but nothing had been found.  He considered that the attitude of the licence holder had changed and he now understood how serious this was.  He was more engaged and was keen to understand where he had gone wrong. 

The licensing authority had met with the licence holder and considered that the Sub-Committee needed to hear the story around the tobacco as he was not sure that it made sense.  If the licence was suspended he considered that additional conditions would also need to be added.  This could include a condition about a personal licence holder being present on the premises at all times and also a condition about high strength alcohol.

In response to questions it was noted that the trading standards officer had seen some training records but would not be able to say what they were.  A training course had been run by the training standards office which was attended by the licensee and one member of staff in June.  It was reported that having a personal licence holder on the premises at all times that alcohol was sold would be one way of ensuring a robust operation.  It was noted that the police representation on page 203 of the agenda contained an accurate summary of breaches.

The police reported that there had been poor management standards at the premises and detailed the breaches in the CCTV condition at a visit to the venue on the 22 April 2016.  He stated that he believed that the CCTV was now working.

The licensee’s representative stated that this was a family run premises that had been managed by Mr Kavruk senior in 2012.  In January 2016 he decided to transfer responsibility to his son and his son became the designated premises supervisor in January 2016.  Mr Kavruk senior and his son had an argument and his son left the premises which resulted in chaos in running the shop in the early part of 2016.  In February 2016 there was an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant.