Agenda and minutes

Councillor Poole welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed those present that the procedure was as detailed in the agenda papers.

None.

None.

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.

None.

The order of business was as the agenda.

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 25 August 2015 be confirmed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Sub-Committee noted that Fisha Behani was present at the meeting.  He would be running the business with his brother Daniel Behani, the applicant who was not present.

The licensing officer reported that additional conditions and other papers had been received from the applicant’s representative which had been circulated.  These had been emailed yesterday evening.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  It was reported that the applicant had attended a training course and it had been reported that he had contributed and seemed attentive.

The police reported that this premises was situated beneath residential properties.  There were already six off-licences within a 200m radius of the venue so the granting of the licence would add to the cumulative impact.  The officer did not consider that the applicant was ready to manage this type of venue.  No additional measures had been offered in the application to avoid problems. It was considered that the applicant had not shown that they were aware of their responsibilities. There had been 482 reported crimes in the 12 weeks prior to the police representation, which, although not necessarily alcohol related, were taking up police time and resources in an already busy area.  He stated that the applicant had not evidenced that he was a responsible licence holder and he therefore objected to the grant of the licence.

The licensing authority stated that there was little information in the operating schedule.  She accepted that hours had been amended and further conditions offered but was not satisfied that the grant of this licence would not add to the cumulative impact.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee she stated that the extra conditions and reduction of hours was helpful but it was necessary to have confidence in the applicant’s ability to implement the conditions.

The public health officer reported that Caledonian ward was an area that had a higher level of alcohol harm compared to the rest of the Borough.  There had been 76 alcohol specific hospital admissions in one year.  The premises were in a super outlet area and was ranked 37^th out of 118th in the borough for alcohol-related ambulance callouts.  It was noted that there was not a particular problem with street drinkers in the area and there were no primary schools within 250 metres.  It was considered that, if the licence was granted, it would significantly add to the cumulative impact of alcohol on the area.

The applicant’s representative reported that the licensing policy stated that each application would be considered on its merits and if an application was refused it would indicate that there was an undermining of the licensing objectives. He had heard the concerns that the completed application did not show a full understanding of the licensing objectives but stated that the licensee had managed the premises from 2012 until October 2014 and there had been no reports of crime failures or test purchase failures. The police had no specific issues.  The licence had been mistakenly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

The licensing officer reported that additional noise conditions and menu details had been circulated.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

A local resident reported that she lived opposite the pub and management did not adhere to their licence.  This was a busy pub and staff could not monitor outside area.  She asked that, if the application was granted, security be employed to monitor the outside noise.  The manager was responsible but there would be concerns if he left. She asked that the first floor be considered as a conference room rather than dining room.

The applicant stated that the application was to vary the plan of the premises and was not dealing with the outside area.  The conditions had been agreed.  There had been no responsible authority representations.  This was a highly regarded premises which provided a good service which had been taken over by new management in 2014.  The premises was 65% food led. 

In response to questions about concerns relating to noise at the front of the premises, it was noted that customers were asked to come in at 10pm and this was enforced.  Although the dining room was for 24 covers, the kitchen was already at full capacity and a higher number in the dining room would reduce the number of covers downstairs.  This was not a party room but a private dining area.  There had been two licensing visits in July and there had been no concerns raised regarding the outside area. There was a new taxi policy and an effort had been made to have more visible staff outside for dispersal.  The applicant stated that the outside area was not related to the application for the dining room. There was noise but this was not considered a nuisance and was monitored by staff. A meeting had been held with residents and four residents withdrew their representations following this meeting. It was noted that the third noise condition circulated separately was similar to the second condition on page 83 and would be deleted.  The configuration of the upstairs dining room would not allow small table dining.

In summary the resident raised concerns that her complaints had not been passed onto management. The applicant said that these would not be missed in the future.

The applicant reported that risks were limited and there would not be 24 customers every night of the week.  The room was to offer an enhanced dining experience and the applicant would work closely with residents.

RESOLVED

a)     That the application for a premises licence variation in respect of The Albion PH, 10 Thornhill Road, N1 1HW be granted to vary the design and layout of the premises in accordance with the submitted plan, ref G15-5302/01A.

b)     Conditions as outlined in appendix 5 as detailed on page 83 of the agenda and the following noise conditions shall be applied to the licence.

• Noise or vibration must not emanate from the premises so as to cause a nuisance to nearby properties.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

The licensing officer informed the Sub-Committee that conditions put forward by Trading Standards had been accepted. It was understood that the licence for 415/417 Holloway Road would be surrendered if this application was granted.

The police objected to this application.  This was in a cumulative impact area on a very busy main route.  There were already 29 licensed premises in an area with a high crime rate and they considered that another off licence would cause the area to suffer further.  They did not think that this would benefit the area.

The licensing authority stated that the applicant had been silent regarding the cumulative impact in his application. 

The public health officer stated that this area had one of the highest specific alcohol concerns.  There had been 53 alcohol related ambulance callouts within a 250m radius of this premises.  The increased number of alcohol outlets resulted in an increase in alcohol related harm.

The applicant stated that when he received an eviction notice from his landlord for 415 Holloway Road he would transfer to this premises.  He tried to work with local residents and the Tufnell Park association and had not had problems.  He had an off licence for 18 years and wanted a licence for this premises for his security.

In response to questions he stated he was trying to sort out his licence without aggravation.  He had a refusals book.  He had not engaged with the police.

In summary the police stated that this licence should not be granted.

The applicant stated that he would not open until he received the eviction notice for the other premises.

RESOLVED that the application for a new premises licence in respect of Mereb, 411 Holloway Road, N7 6HJ be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was an application for a new off supplies premises licence.

The Sub-Committee considered the written application and written representations from the responsible authorities and the verbal representations made at the hearing.

The Sub-committee further took into consideration that there had been very little engagement between the applicant and the responsible authorities prior to submitting the application and the period thereafter.

The Sub-Committee considered that the premises in question were in a cumulative impact area and that there were ten off licences in the area and one across the road. They also took the concerns of Public Health into consideration and the fact that street drinking is a problem in that area.

The applicant submitted that he was the licensee for another premises nearby and that he was concerned that he was about to be evicted from those premises.  This application had been brought as a form of security for him in the event that he was evicted from the other premises.

In addition thereto, the Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the applicant failed to demonstrate that he understood his obligations as a licensee in promoting the licensing objectives.

It was found that he failed to demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

The police stated that they fully supported the review submitted by the licensing authority.  The sales that had taken place on the 3 and the 4 July, after hours was not just one of those things.  This was not behaviour that should be shown by a licensee.  At  no time had the licensee demonstrated that he wanted to work with the authorities.

The licensing authority stated that a summary of their review could be located at pages 188-121 of the agenda.  When events such as the Wireless Festival were held the licensing authority asked their licensees to impose stricter measures.  This should not be an opportunity for an applicant to apply for a temporary event notice and when refused, to sell alcohol after hours.  Their CCTV had not been working when requested, the refusals book was blank, the certificates out of date and there were no details of training records.

In response to questions it was considered that upon examination by officers the refusals book looked as if it had been completed at the same time rather than on a daily basis.

The trading standards officer reported that no contact had been made since his representation had been made.  At the time of the application for the licence, in Spring 2014, he had been quite supportive of the applicants but it appears that his trust was misplaced.  He sent an email to the business in September 2014 stating that continued breaches would not be acceptable, following a failed underage test purchase and after noting high strength alcohol on the shelves,.  The licensees did not heed the warning.  He considered that repeated breaches were intentional and the licensee had a disregard for truth under caution and was either incompetent or unwilling to manage the business properly.

The licensee stated that it was a shame that they had reached this point.  Licensing officers had been helpful throughout and had informed them how they needed to comply with the license conditions.  They did not have much experience and did not realise how hard it would be as they were open 19 hours each day.  The underage sale had been witnessed by trading standards and alcohol was sold by his mother. They did not employ other people in the business and the problems had been made by their parents.  They shared responsibilities.  They did not sell after hours, it was the parents and they did not realise that Oranjeboon was a beer. This was a misunderstanding.  The fridges had locks but they now closed at 11pm so there would be no problem with the open shelves.  The CCTV was fixed on the same day that licensing officers had visited. He apologised on his parents behalf and wished they could be in the shop 19 hours a day. The first aid kit was available but he asked officers to wait ten minutes as he was busy.  He showed it to police the next day.   He was trying his best.  His brother had refused a sale.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

The licensing officer reported that an email had been received from the applicant submitting a reduction in hours.

The licensing authority stated that this was a new application for a premises licence by the same family who operated the premises at 426 St John Street, whose licence was revoked by Sub-Committee a year ago.  It was concerning that the conditions proposed had been lifted from conditions from the licence at 426 St John Street.  It stated in the schedule that training would be attended in 2015.  This had not been done and it was now November 2015.  She understood the applicant was willing to reduce the hours applied for.  The hours were an issue.  She had concerns about the staffing and the training in the premises.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the licensing authority was concerned that not much thought had gone into the application and she considered that the proposal was not robust enough to take seriously.

The applicant’s representative stated that an application had been made in March 2015 and following objections from the responsible authorities, had been withdrawn.  In the intervening months the applicant had worked proactively with the authorities and following substantial alterations had submitted a new application. There had been no representations received from the noise team, police or trading standards for the new application.  He stated that the applicant had been proactive in solving issues that the responsible authorities had and was willing to restrict the hours still further and to stop sales of alcohol at 9pm.  Sales of tobacco had not been a concern, alcohol would be stored in a corner and withdrawn from the public at 9pm by use of a shutter system.  The main concerns raised in the licensing policy for the Bunhill/Clerkenwell area were the late night economy and it was proposed to only sell until 9pm.  He therefore did not think these premises would affect the cumulative impact.

The applicant had significant and genuine engagement with the responsible authorities.  The first application had been withdrawn and since then, the applicant had worked closely with the police and trading standards and conditions had been written in liaison with these authorities.  In relation to the history of non-compliance, this premises had completely different management and the conditions reflected any concerns regarding family links as it named family relations who would not be involved in the business.  These concerns prevented any potential problems in the business and were to the credit of the applicant.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, it was stated that the conditions were included in the application to pre-empt any concerns and to confirm that these family members would not be connected with the business.  The applicant had not wanted to ignore the public safety aspect and so was aware that a first aider was always present at the Old Red Lion during operating hours and had covered this by condition.  As the premises proposed to stop serving alcohol at 9pm there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.