Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Shaikh and Perry submitted apologies for absence.

Councillor Williamson substituted for Councillor Shaikh and Councillor Ward substituted for Councillor Perry.

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 would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 22 March 2016 be confirmed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer stated that they had nothing further to add to the report.

The police reported that there had been a reduction in crime of 11% over the same period to the previous year, which they considered was due to the work carried out by the responsible authorities.  They reported that there had been a large number of crimes in late night venues and increasing access to alcohol was not a risk that they wanted to take. 

The Public Health department stated that the ambulance callouts in this geographical area was significantly higher than the borough average.  This created a significant burden in terms of ambulance call outs, which peaked during the early hours.  It was considered that all the responsible authorities needed to work in partnership to reduce these incidents. 

The applicant stated that he struggled to pay his taxes.  Many shops had closed and not re-opened.  He considered that the increase in hours would be an improvement to help business owners and the local area.  Bigger stores opening locally had affected trade.  He had an oyster machine and pay point to improve the services he provided in his shop and wanted an extension in hours.  He would work with the police.  He said he was struggling to pay his workers but could pay them if the hours to trade were increased. He aimed to pay his taxes.

In response to a question regarding whether the premises would be an exception to the cumulative impact policy he stated that he had an oyster machine and would help people in the area.  He could not afford representation.  He stated that he did not sell alcohol to people when drunk and had a refusal book.  He trained his staff well and asked for ID.  He would require alcohol licensing hours to be the same as opening hours otherwise there might be trouble inside the store.  If customers bought alcohol they might use other services.

In summary the police stated that their objection that the premises were in a cumulative impact area still remained.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence variation be refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

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 Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Kings Cross cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations to premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Representations had been made by the licensing authority, the police and public health.  There were four local resident representations in support of the application.

The Sub-Committee noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

The licensing officer stated that the opening hours had been amended from 07:00 to 23:00 and not 24 hours as stated in the application.

Further information regarding an additional police condition was circulated and would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The Chair expressed concern that planning permission had not yet been determined as there was an expectation in the Council’s licensing policy for this to be granted prior to a licensing application being made.  The applicant stated that licensing and planning were two separate regimes and a policy statement would not override the Licensing Act.

During a short adjournment for members to consider how to proceed in this matter the applicant produced a grant of planning permission which he considered to include this premises.  The Sub-Committee therefore agreed to proceed with the hearing.

The police reported that, although this premises was not in the cumulative impact zone, it fell with the Emirates Stadium Footprint which was very busy on event days.  The event days were often more significant than the night-time economy.  Local venues had been written to and agreements reached regarding conditions for event days. The goodwill of venues was required. The police had proposed a condition for event days which the applicant had not agreed.  The police stated that they had agreed similarly worded conditions with other premises and considered that it was imperative that new licences were conditioned.

The applicant stated that on the police proposed condition dated 29 October 2015 they had not stated that the premises could not sell alcohol. 

The licensing authority was concerned about the application and agreed that the police condition should be imposed.  It was also stressed that this area was known for street drinkers, had several hostels in the area and asked that there be a 10:00 am start to alcohol sales rather than 8am.

The applicant stated that hours requested for alcohol sales were 8am to 11pm and that the premises were not in a cumulative impact area.  He stated that there were only two premises in the area that were subject to event conditions on their licence.  One of these was following a review of the licence when an additional 25 conditions were imposed. He considered that any condition regarding event days should be agreed through goodwill and not imposed on the licence.  The proposed condition went further than the conditions on all of the other off licence conditions in the area.  If this condition was imposed the premises would not be able to sell alcohol for 9 hours. This condition was considered disproportionate.  The applicant stated that Sainsbury’s would comply with any letter request from the licensing team.  Sainsbury’s already complied with police requests in other stores. They had not seen evidence that off licences created problems. Regarding the proposed 10:00 am start, the Sub-Committee was informed that the majority of off-licences in the area had licensing hours of 8am-11pm with a couple of 24 hour premises.  Conditions had been agreed regarding the sale of single  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

The licensing officer reported that a response from a residents meeting had been tabled.  The Chair stated they had all read the letter and it had been helpful.  The letter would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The applicant’s agent stated that he had considered the licensing policy hours.  He understood the concerns of the residents given the previous history of the premises.  The applicant had been recommended and this would be a different type of premises to the previous one.  This would be a top class Italian restaurant with no regulated entertainment.  The residents meeting went well but he understood that not everyone present was convinced.

In response to questions, the applicant stated for thirty years he had been a sommelier and manager of premises.  He would be the designated premises supervisor and would be on the premises about 4-6 hours each day.  This business would be his main priority.  About ten years ago he had run a restaurant as a manager but not as the owner.  He planned to engage with the community and build confidence.  He stated he was a qualified sommelier and had considered wine tastings at the premises.  The previous occupier owned the building, rented out the flat upstairs and lived locally but would not have any day to day involvement with the business.  This was not an application for an off licence.  The applicant welcomed a condition that the previous owner would not have any involvement in the business.

RESOLVED

1)               That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Angelo’s Italian, 156A Seven Sisters Road, N7 7PS be granted.

a)           To permit the on sales of alcohol at the premises on Monday to Saturday from 11:00 until 23:00 and Sunday from 11:00 until 22:30.

b)           The opening hours of the premises to be Monday to Saturday from 10:00 to 23:30 and from Sunday from 10:00 until 23:00.   

2)               Conditions as detailed on page 87 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following additional condition:-

·          Mr Detar Hekuri will have no involvement in any licensable activity at the premises.

REASONS FOR DECISION

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 Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Holloway and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that new applications for premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

There were four local resident objections.  The Sub-Committee were provided with a statement on behalf of the residents who were unable to attend.

The Sub-Committee noted that there had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

The licensing officer reported that he had nothing further to add to the report.

The police stated that the hours requested fell outside the recommended hours contained within the licensing policy.  The premises were situated in a very busy transport hub where 463 crimes had been reported over the past six months.  The premises had been operating for five years without a licence and a warning letter sent in 2013 had been ignored.  This reflected poor management standards.  Four crimes had been linked to the venue and although they were not linked to poor management they were at times when the business should not have been operating.  The applicant had been advised to operate within hours proposed by the policy but this had been rejected by the applicant.

In response to questions it was reported that the police had discussed the application with the applicant and would agree midnight during the week and 1am on Fridays and Saturdays. They agreed that deliveries could be made after this time.  However, the applicant would not agree to this and requested 3 or 4 am for passing trade.

The applicant stated that the warning letter had not been sent to his address and was not in his name.  It was addressed to another occupier who runs the basement premises and he did not pass the letter onto him. He wanted the opportunity to get ahead and had established his business.  He stated that his business would not survive without a late night licence.  Once he had received the letter about his hours he took action straight away.  He stated that the business would be takeaway after 11pm.  He would follow procedures and record incidents.  He would ask customers to leave quietly and respect neighbours.  This was not a licence for alcohol and music was not played on the premises.  CCTV would be installed and shared with the police.  He always called the police when necessary.  He had made a mistake and needed a second chance.  He was happy to agree to all the conditions. 

In response to questions, the applicant stated that he had five years experience; he had handled the business with no problems and was happy to do what he instructed to do.  He admitted that he had been operating without a licence for five years.  He stated that Thursdays through to Saturdays was very busy. If he closed at 11pm he would only have four to five hours of business and he was very quiet before 11pm.  He stated that other shops were trading in the area at 4am. The warning letter was sent to downstairs and he did not receive it.  The applicant apologised but stated that he needed a second chance and if he had to operate only until 11pm he would lose too much business.

In summary, the police stated that they did not have an issue with the management of the business but stated that this was a cumulative impact area and they did not want  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

The Sub-Committee noted that there was only one resident objection remaining to this application. 

The application was to extend the licence to include the ground floor. 

The resident stated that he did not want noise from customers and smokers outside until 3am making it difficult for residents to sleep. 

The applicant’s agent stated that the premises had been purchased two years ago.  There had been an issue in July 2014 regarding noise but there had been no complaints since.  Acoustic work at a cost of £10000 would be carried out.  The application was for an extension for regulated entertainment so conditions regarding drinks outside were not within the scope of the application; however the applicant was happy to agree the additional conditions. There was currently no restriction on smokers outside.  Drinks would not be allowed outside after 11pm. 

In response to questions, the applicant agreed to a condition to restrict the number of smokers after 11pm.  Staff had been good at managing the outside areas and no complaints had been received.  The outside space was visible from inside the premises. Once furniture was removed from outside, customers did not stay outside for a long period.

In summary, the resident stated that he could hear music when customers entered or left the premises.  He stated that 20 smokers would be difficult to manage after 11 pm.

The applicant stated that he had engaged with the responsible authorities and interested parties.  There had been no representation from the police and eight conditions had been agreed which were beyond the scope of the variation.  The application had brought in very significant controls which would promote the licensing objectives.  He agreed an amendment to condition 7 to restrict the number of smokers outside after 11pm.

RESOLVED

1) That the application for a premises licence variation in respect of Joker of Penton Street, 58 Penton Street, London, N1 9BZ be granted:-

a) To amend the premises licence so as to allow all currently authorised activities and hours to be extended to include the ground floor.  

b) Allow an additional hour to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British summertime commences.

c)   Update the company’s registered address to:-

       Global House, High Street, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1DL

2) Conditions as on page 144 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the amendment of condition 7 to read.

·        After 11pm, there shall be no more than 20 smokers at any one time outside and the smokers will be supervised.

REASONS FOR DECISION

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 Policy 2.  The premises fall under the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for variations to premises licences that are likely to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.