Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Champion 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.

Councillor Cutler declared that Le Coq Epicer was in her ward.

The order of business would be as per the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer advised that the licensing authority, police and noise team had withdrawn their objections as the amended conditions circulated had been agreed. She confirmed that an event had been held under a TENs on 4th, 5th and 6th September and although noise complaints were emailed after the event, they were not made to the noise team at the time of the event so were unsubstantiated.

The Chair of the Florin Court Freehold Association stated that he was speaking on behalf of 74 individuals. He raised concern about noise especially as the flats were in a listed building and did not have double glazing. He raised concern about security, stated that holding events would establish a precedent and referred to a deed that had been in place since 1990. He was liaising with Charterhouse on this and requested the consideration of this item be deferred until an agreement on the deed had been reached. He anticipated this would be in the next couple of months. The deed provided for the use of the square and gardens by the residents of Florin Court. At the time the deed was made, it was not anticipated that the Charterhouse would be open to the public. People took on leases knowing the deed was in place and there were certain expectations. In response to a question from a member, the Chair of the Florin Court Freehold Association suggested that the association should know what the events would be so they could approve them in advance.

In response to a question, the applicant stated that if the licence was granted there would be a maximum of 10 events per year. This would equate to ten days in total.

A resident raised concern that Charterhouse Square was in a cumulative impact area and suggested that the Charterhouse was a large charity with considerable resources. They had made a business choice to remove parking from the square which would result in lost revenue.

A resident stated that there were not many green spaces in Bunhill, raised concern that events were being proposed on a burial site and events could be held in the Charterhouse building. Concern was raised about a tent being used for events.

The applicant advised that a significant amount of money had been spent improving the square and this had involved removing parking and lost revenue of £110,000. There was not much green space in Bunhill and the Charterhouse wanted to open the square up to the public following the Charterhouse museum opening. There had been support from the Golden Lane Estate. Meetings had been held with local residents every six months and these meetings to discuss concerns would continue to be held.

The applicant expressed the view that the rights of Florin Court under the deed did not make the application unacceptable. The events would enable the Brothers to meet local people.

The applicant advised that some of the Brothers’ bedrooms looked out onto the square and the building did not have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The licensing officer stated that information from the applicant’s legal representative had been sent to the members and interested parties. A resident had provided a document later than the 48 hour prior to the hearing deadline but as the applicant had agreed to its submission, it was shown to the Sub-Committee.

A resident raised concerns about the negative cumulative impact and public nuisance. She explained that the street had no other pubs or bars. The businesses there were a furniture showroom and desk based businesses. There were schools neighbouring the premises and apart from at the beginning and end of the day, the street was very quiet. It was also a very narrow street and there were only two trees and no grass so there was nothing to absorb the sound. Children’s bedrooms were in very close proximity to Fora. These circumstances meant there would be a particularly adverse impact on this street.

The resident raised concern that granting a licence would change the character of the street. It was not just Fora members that could use the lounge and terrace but also up to three guests for each member and guests pre-registered to attend planned events. Concern was raised that 80 people could leave the building at the same time in the evening after having had consumed alcohol. Concern was raised about the effects on vulnerable people on the street, noise levels from the terrace, from people congregating to smoke outside, from deliveries and from the increased demand for taxis.

In response to a question from a member about the impact on the adjoining school, a resident advised that the parents had been very concerned about the application and many had put in representations. They were particularly concerned about inebriated people leaving the premises and those drinking on the terrace overlooking the school. One person who worked at the school and used Fora’s facilities had submitted a representation in support of the application but the resident stated that this person’s views were not shared by the parents.

The resident requested that if the licence was granted, it should only be granted between 5pm and 8pm Monday to Friday to enable children to sleep and residents’ to have nuisance free evenings and weekends.

In response to a member’s question, a resident confirmed that she had made complaints to both the council and Fora. She stated that the management at Fora were very responsive and there was a good working relationship with residents. The noise team stated that the council had not received any complaints in relation to Dallington Street.

The applicant stated that Fora primarily provided office facilities for those who wanted to rent workspace rather than rent their own building. Alcohol would be an ancillary feature and it was not anticipated that large volumes of alcohol would be sold. Currently the premises was 98% let. The manager stated that four or five complaints had been received in the last month in relation to the time of deliveries and waste  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The licensing officer advised that the applicant had agreed the conditions suggested by the police so the police representation had been withdrawn. The applicant had also agreed a standard match day condition that alcohol should not be sold on Sundays until 12pm. The applicant had agreed all but one of the noise team’s suggested conditions.

The noise officer stated that residents were in very close proximity to the premises and numerous pubs and licensed premises in the area. The condition which had not been agreed by the applicant was that alcohol should only be sold ancillary to a meal. There was concern that without this condition, the premises could become alcohol led and become a bar.

The applicant stated that he was concerned about alcohol being sold ancillary to a meal as the premises was a small café and did not sell substantial meals. The noise officer stated that a small plate of food would meet the condition.

The applicant stated that he was not aware there was an issue with the planning use class as outlined in the officer report. He reported that the café had been operating as a café for 8 years and the current owner had had it for 1 ½ years.

The applicant stated that he was looking to diversify the business as a result of business rate increase. There would be no vertical drinking, there was currently seating for 14 people and extra seating would be introduced for small scale events. In response to a concern about refuse collection, the applicant stated that refuse was stored in a private alley and was collected between 5.30pm and 7pm.

The applicant advised that a strict Challenge 25 scheme would be implemented and the premises would not add to the cumulative impact. It would not be alcohol led and the only music played would be background music.

Following discussion with the noise officer, the applicant stated that he would be happy to accept the outstanding condition proposed by the noise team that alcohol be sold ancillary to a meal if the word “meal” was replaced by “food”.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Temptations, 25-27 Highbury Corner, Islington, London, N5 1RA be granted

1)         To allow on sales of alcohol, Monday to Sunday from 11:00 until 22:30.

2)         To allow off sales of alcohol Monday to Sunday from 11:00 until 23:00.

3)         Opening hours of the premises to be:-  06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday.  

Conditions detailed on pages 226 - 228 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence. Condition 18 has been amended as agreed. The Licensing Authority’s standard match day condition number 1 in relation to sale of alcohol on a Sunday has been applied as agreed.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The licensing officer had no updates for the sub-committee. The chair stated that although there were no objectors present, there had been written objections.

The applicant stated that he wanted to sell alcohol by the glass with a cheeseboard or charcuterie in response to requests from customers. The applicant confirmed that he only served French wine and no beer or spirits and that he did not intend to turn the premises into a pub. Tables would be cleared at 7.30pm. Once a month he held a wine tasting event and there had been no complaints about these. The landlord lived upstairs and had not complained. The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant was in the second year of running the business and it was an upmarket French delicatessen. The licence would not change the atmosphere of Camden Passage. The starting price of a glass of wine would be about £8 and a cheeseboard cost about £20.

The licensing officer advised that the conditions on the current licence would apply with Condition 1 from Annex 1 removed and Condition 2, Annex 2 amended.

In response to a question from a member about the narrow pavement and how accidents would be prevented, particularly if customers were inebriated, the applicant explained that the chairs outside would be very close to the shop and there was a bollard in front so a car would not be able to mount the pavement there. There was currently one table outside and cheeseboards had been served to those at this table for the last two years without any problems. The applicant’s representative explained that the premises operated at a relaxed rate, there would be no vertical drinking and it would not be in the applicant’s interest to allow customers to become inebriated. There would be seating for four people inside and four people outside. 14 people could be accommodated for wine tastings.

RESOLVED:

That the application for a premises licence variation in respect of Le Coq Epicer, 1 Camden Passage, Islington, London, N1 8EA be granted

1)         To remove the restriction for the provision of on sales to pre booked wine tasting events only to allow the premises to sell wine by the glass on the premises, as ancillary to food such as cheeseboards or other food platters.

Conditions detailed on page 250 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence.

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 Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.