Agenda and minutes

Councillor Phil Graham 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 Anjna Khurana.

Councillor Asima Shaikh substituted for Councillor Anjna Khurana.

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 Heather Staff declared that she was a councillor in Laycock Ward. She had not had any involvement with the applicant or the objectors regarding Item B1 – Islington Blend on the agenda.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2022 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that the Licensing Authority had made a representation which was withdrawn after conditions were agreed. Four residents had put in representations. No residents were in attendance but two had confirmed that they wished their objections to remain.

The applicant’s representative stated that this premises had a restaurant style licence but was a high-end cocktail bar. The variation application had been submitted to remove the maximum number of persons from 50 to around 65 persons and to remove the condition that alcohol would be sold ancillary to a meal. The police, noise team and the licensing authority had been consulted and the application had been an opportunity to substitute old conditions with new updated ones.  He submitted that this application promoted the licensing objectives. There had been a joint representation made by four residents.  Noise complaints had been made in 2017 and 2019 under previous operators. No representations had been made by the noise team, police or trading standards. The Licensing Authority had submitted conditions which had been agreed. It was considered that therefore this application would be capable of promoting the licensing objectives.  There had been no representations made by local councillors. Local residents had been written to but no response had been received and in addition, residents had been invited to a meeting with the licensee but this offer had not been taken up. He considered that with the comprehensive operating schedule and the conditions, the application would not undermine the licensing objectives and he asked that the licence be granted as sought.

In response to questions, it was noted that the premises was not in a cumulative impact area.  There was currently a 24 hour licence for recorded music in place. It was expected that the maximum number of customers could be 65 persons but numbers would be subject to a fire service risk assessment. There was an outside seating area which was limited to 10 smokers after 10pm. No drinking outside was allowed after 9pm.  Staff would monitor the outside area. There were glass windows and staff would be able to see the behaviour of customers. It was unlikely that customers would wander onto the pavement area. There would be no vertical drinking. Music would be at background level. The licensing officer reported that music should be played at a background level and voices should not be raised in order to be heard. At this level, music was not considered to be licensable. The regulated entertainment had previously been for 24 hours daily and it was proposed that this be removed from the licence. The licensee’s representative confirmed that this was not a party place and would be ideal for groups of friends or couples. Most customers would be over 25 years of age and cocktails were in the region of £9.  There would be glass collections every ten minutes and the glass windows allowed staff to view customers outside.

In summary, the licensee’s representative asked that the Sub-Committee grant the application.

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The licensing officer reported that there were no representations from any responsible authority.  There had been two resident representations. One of these had been withdrawn following an amendment to the hours requested.

The resident reported that he had emailed further comments following agenda publication and he would refer to this in his submission. He reported that the industrial unit operated 8am to 6pm and even at 5am.  It was noisy and loud.  The premises had a fridge storage container which they used at Christmas which hummed constantly. A truck would deliver once a day. He appreciated that the hours had been reduced but requested that the hours be reduced to 1pm on Saturday as they were the operation hours for the estate. There were five parking spaces and he considered that the licence would lead to an increase in deliveries and additional vehicles would cause more nuisance.

The licensing officer reported that Challenge 25 would be operated at the point of delivery.

In response to questions of the resident it was noted that the generator had been used for the Christmas period but not used for the whole year. There was activity from around 5am on the estate but the resident stated that this was not usually from La Fromagerie but was on occasion. The resident was informed that other premises may not be licensed. The planning use related to B8 as a storage and distribution point.

The applicant’s representative stated that the business had opened up the unit in 2011 and had supplied shops and wholesale businesses. They employed 20 staff and now wished to streamline their services and move the online sale of alcohol from the warehouse facility. There would be no deliveries on Sundays. The cheese deliveries themselves were not licensable. Longer hours had been applied for to give flexibility in the future but hours had been amended to 8am to 6pm. Two small delivery vans were used.  Age restriction measures had been approved by the trading standards officer.  They would not be adding any volume to the deliveries, but just adding some wine and they did not consider that this would increase the traffic to the estate.

In response to questions, it was noted that they would move to electric vehicles in the future. They currently had 2 small van collections each day for cheese deliveries and wine would be added to the existing deliveries. The applicant’s representative agreed to a minimum order of cheese with wine. He stated that if customers wanted to purchase wine only they could go to their shop. They received a couple of deliveries a week in larger vehicles. These were deliveries of cheese and not related to wine deliveries. The articulated lorry referred to by the resident was not related to the business.

In summary, the resident asked that deliveries stop at 1pm on a Saturday. The licensing officer advised the resident to contact them if he had any complaints.

The applicant’s representative stated that he did not believe disturbance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.