Agenda and minutes

Councillor Flora Williamson welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined and those present were informed that the procedure was detailed in the papers.

Received from Councillor Aysegul Erdogan.

Councillor Alex Diner substituted for Councillor Erdogan.

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 Chair advised all present that there were two items remaining on the agenda: Item B1 – Unit 1, 62 Turnmill Street, EC1 and agenda Item B3 – Addis Ababa, 192 Seven Sisters Road, N4 3NX.

The Licensing Officer reported that, since the licence application had been submitted, the Police had withdrawn their representations.  In addition, following discussions between the applicant and resident objectors, agreement had been reached on a number of outstanding issues, culminating in a revised set of conditions, copies of which were laid round.  However, a few areas of disagreement still remained, which were highlighted in yellow on the circulated document. The applicant’s representative suggested that the highlighted areas in the revised conditions should form the basis of discussion.

The applicant’s representative made the following observations:

Revised condition 1: The following opening hours had been agreed with residents: 08:00 to 23:00 hours from Monday to Thursday, 08:00 to 00:00 hours on Friday, 09:00 to 00:00 hours on Saturday and 10:00 to 19:00 hours on Sunday. 

Revised condition 13: As the premises licence holder was not in a position to control third parties, such as vehicles making collections and deliveries, or collection of rubbish, he suggested that a revision be made to condition 13, to read as follows “The premises licence holder shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that no deliveries or rubbish collections are permitted before 07:00 and after 19:00 from Monday to Sunday and no vehicles shall be permitted to sit outside the premises prior to 07:00 waiting to make deliveries……moved on”.  However, he highlighted the fact that, as all the produce used in the restaurant was fresh each day, the issue of deliveries on Sundays and Bank Holidays was still an issue as the resident objectors wanted no deliveries on those days.

Revised condition 20: As the premises licence holder was not in a position to control third parties, such as waiting taxi/minicab services, he suggested that a revision be made to condition 20, after the word “customers”, to read as follows “and the premises licence holder shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that any called minicabs…….at any time”

Revised condition 23: It was not lawful to include this condition requesting the licence holder not to seek a Temporary Event Notice.

Revised condition 32: It was not lawful to include this condition requesting the licence holder not to seek a variation to opening or licensed hours.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Legal Officer confirmed that she concurred with the applicant’s representative that the inclusion of revised conditions 23 and 32 would not be enforceable and not upheld by a Court in the event of a challenge.  She advised that it would be possible for the Licensing Authority to enforce to some extent a condition requiring the premises licence holder “ to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that” in revised conditions 13 and 20.

A spokesperson for the resident objectors regretted the fact that the licensee had taken four months to produce the revised conditions, which removed many of the original objections raised by residents. She wished to see the first sentence of the final paragraph of revised condition 1 being retained ie “The Licence Holder  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been postponed to the meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee on 17 September 2015.

The Sub-Committee noted that English was not the first language of the premises licence holder, but he had colleagues present who would interpret for him where necessary.

The Licensing Officer stated that there was no additional information to report. The review of the premises had been triggered automatically by an application from the Metropolitan Police Service for a closure notice under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which was issued by Highbury Magistrates’ Court on 30 July 2015.

The Police representative reported that a number of incidents, most often occurring very late at night or early in the morning, had taken place at or near the premises and there had been breaches of conditions associated with CCTV operation.  The area was a hotspot for violence and Addis Ababa was the only licensed premises in the area. The Police  were therefore of the view that Addis Ababa was responsible for most of the crime in the area after midnight.  He pointed out that, rather than a revocation of the licence, a closure order had been issued by the Court to afford the licence holder and management an opportunity to put their affairs in order. The Police had recommended that, if the premises was permitted to operate after the eight week closure order, the opening hours should be reduced and a number of other conditions applied to the licence, which were detailed in the Police’s written representation in pages 148 to 150 of the agenda.

The Licensing Authority’s representative referred to the Authority’s written representation on page 151 of the agenda and stated that revocation would not have been proportionate but, if the Sub-Committee agreed, it would be necessary to look at the conditions on the licence and to ensure that there was no sale of alcohol after midnight. The premises should also be asked to provide a more diverse offer by, for instance, selling meals.

The premises licence holder’s representative referred to the number of findings against the venue, detailed on page 137 of the agenda, which had lead to a Judge making the finding that closure of the premises was necessary “to prevent the

behaviour, nuisance and disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring”. He asserted that the Police could have informed the Licensing Authority that a review was necessary at any stage, before the closure order was applied for, but had not. He stated that his client took the problems seriously and accepted that he must tighten up on the persons entering and exiting the premises. His client intended to limit the numbers in the premises and to keep a list of those allowed into the premises, or their acquaintances, by way of an informal membership list.

The premises licence holder’s representative said that it was clear that the Magistrate who made the closure order had not wanted the premises to close. The premises owner had spent a lot of money on the premises. He did not agree with the proposal that only those persons eating in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda on the basis of agreed conditions.