Agenda and minutes

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

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The applicant reported that this was a coffee roaster shop which would serve pastries, cakes and salads alongside coffee.  They were aiming to sell local craft beers and British wines ancillary to food.  There were approximately 20 seats in the café, they would not be selling spirits or cocktails and there would be no vertical drinking. 

The Sub-Committee raised concerns regarding the primary school opposite the café and that customers would be drinking alcohol on the tables outside the premises. The applicant stated that the café closed at 5pm and agreed to a condition that alcohol would not be served at the outside tables.  The applicant stated that his wife was a sommelier and wine was her passion. He did not believe that much wine would be sold at the price point charged.

In summary, the applicant stated that the café closed currently at 5pm but they were looking for hours until 8pm for as a contingency if they were unable to break even.  There would be no alcohol served after 8pm.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Scarlett Coffee Roasters, 30 Duncan Street, N1 8BW, be granted to allow the sale of alcohol, on and off the premises from 12:00 until 8pm Monday to Sunday.

2)     That conditions outlined on pages 40 and 42 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the following additional condition:-

·         No alcohol shall be served at the tables and chairs outside 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 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 demonstrate in the operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

Nine local resident objections had been received. Following a meeting with the applicant the Angel Association withdrew their representation. There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities. It was noted that the premises had a small capacity of under 25 people.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 6.

The applicant advised that they would be selling local craft beers and British wines at the premises.

The Sub-Committee raised concerns that alcohol was to be served at tables opposite a primary school.  The applicant agreed to a condition that alcohol would not be served to the outside tables.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the premises would not add to the existing cumulative impact in the area, there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The interested party noted that there was no application for adult entertainment.  The applicant had amended the commencement hour for the sale of alcohol from 7.30 am to 10am following comments received by interested parties.  The licensing officer stated that the opening hour of the premises would be 7.30 am. Photographs received from the interested party regarding deliveries at 10.10pm were not outside the hours allowed for deliveries.

The interested parties raised concerns about noise from deliveries and dispersal and the cumulative impact in the area.  There were five shops in the area selling alcohol and waste collection carts late at night. They stated that the hours had been extended from the previous licence and they had considerable problems with beggars in the area. They considered that the noise reduction measures were limited and they needed assurance that the applicant would comply with Challenge 25 and be monitored.

In response to a question regarding the low number of objections the interested party responded that she could not force residents to submit representations and that it made more sense for her to make objections on their behalf. The resident stated that the premises in the area impacted daily on their lives with longer hours and more deliveries.  The noise officer reported that there had been no complaints about any restaurant in that terrace in the past year. It was noted that the applicant had proposed most conditions in the operating schedule themselves.  This was a small premise, was not alcohol led and there had been no representation from the licensing authority.

The applicant stated that this was to be a small family led bakery and the family owned a greek restaurant across the road which they had been running for one year.  They had managed a similar store in Shoreditch for five years.  She has agreed to amend the hours originally applied for.  It currently closed at 9pm on weekdays and in the summer it was hoped to open until 10pm.  Both the applicant and her partner were designated premises supervisors and they lived in the area.  They carried out robust training for staff. They operated Challenge 25 in their other premises.  They did not usually have late deliveries and were normally very quiet. They had no waste collections after 6pm and it was not their intention to upset neighbours.  Alcohol was a small part of their business.  They would not be serving inside the premises and alcohol would be sold for ‘off sales’ and for deliveries. 

In response to questions it was noted that groceries would be imported from Greece and cakes and pastries were homemade.  There would not usually be more than five customers on the premises.  There would be four members of staff and it was hoped that customers who used the restaurant would come to the shop to buy produce. 

In summary, the interested parties raised concerns that the conditions would need to be monitored.  This would be one more premises adding to the cumulative impact in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The licensing officer advised that planning officers had confirmed that an application had been made to resolve the planning situation.

The applicant advised that this was a theatre/comedy club.  Tickets were purchased in advance and the venue did not attract customers off the street. There had been one noise complaint and this had been dealt with immediately and no complaints had been made since. The extension of hours was requested to fall in line with other venues in the city and as there were some comedians that performed later in the evening whom they have had to turn down.  One representation had been made which was not relevant to this particular venue.  Security was employed if considered necessary. 

In response to questions it was noted that guests were dispersed towards Pentonville Road and residents could not hear any noise from within the venue. They were a member of Pubwatch and they had no bag thefts or phone thefts or any reported incidents of drug use.  Names and contact details of patrons was held.

RESOLVED

1)     That the application for a premises licence variation, in respect of 2 Northdown Street, N1 9B, be granted to:-

a)    Extend the hours for the sale of alcohol on the premises, on Wednesday and Thursday until midnight and for Friday and Saturday until 1am.

b)    The premises to be open to the public from 12:00 noon until 23:30 Sunday to Tuesday, from 12 noon until half past midnight on Wednesday and Thursday and from 12:00 noon until 01:30 Friday and Saturday.

2)     That conditions outlined on pages 112-114 of the agenda 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 Kings Cross 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 demonstrate in the operation schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives.

One local resident objections had been received.  There had been no representations made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted conditions had been proposed following discussions from the police and the noise team. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that this was a small theatre/comedy club.  Tickets were purchased in advance and the premises would not attract customers from the street.  They had demand from comedians who performed later shows and had applied for an extension of hours for this reason.  They dispersed guests towards Pentonville Road away from residential buildings. The venue was fully sound proofed and residents could not hear any noise from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The licensing officer reported that an addendum to the noise representation and an email from the applicant containing supportive references of the licence holder had been circulated separately and would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The noise officer reported that music noise could be controlled relatively easily but not customer noise.  She had visited a resident on 10 March during an Arsenal and Manchester United football match and witnessed the transmission of customer noise. She considered that more robust sound insulation work would be necessary to contain customer noise. A squeaky swinging sign outside also needed to be maintained.

The police stated that they were in support of the concerns expressed by the licensing authority over the management of the premises.  The premises had been a public house and then chicken bar.  The conditions were currently tailored to a restaurant. The police supported the move for the premises to move back to being a public house but had stressed to the owners that the premises should be operated in accordance with the current licence.  The applicant had not been abiding by the conditions and had not done so for some time.  They would not have reason to reject the new licence holder. 

The licensing authority stated that despite a meeting with the licence holder they had not complied with the conditions of the licence and had opened until 6am without a temporary event notice. The solicitor had stated that the previous designated premises supervisor had left on the 8 March although he was the only Director registered with Companies House as of 20 March 2019. The licensing authority would like the venue to become a well-managed public house but the applicant had so far not demonstrated high management standards. 

The interested party stated that when the premises was a restaurant there were no issues.  The premises currently operated late at night and caused a noise nuisance.  He had been threatened by the Head of Security when complaining.  They were offering cheap drink deals.  Fights had been witnessed outside the bar and one of the windows was smashed. There were issues regarding crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance. The premises already contributed to the cumulative impact policy and could not credibly demonstrate good management.  The applicant had reneged on the promise that it would act as a restaurant.  It was actually a sports bar and created disturbance even during the consultation period.  An abatement notice had been served. There had been a history of threatening behaviour and there had been blatant disregard for the conditions. 

In response to questions it was noted that even on non-match days the music was still loud.  On busy days the premises were packed inside and there were crowds of people outside. The premises impacted on their sleep as noise continued until 1am.  The interested party would want acoustic work carried out in order that both music and sound from crowds could not be heard.  He could not speak for the other interested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been removed from the list of applications.