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.

Apologies were received from Councillor Erdogan.

Councillor Angela Picknell 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The Chair advised that Item C1, The Horns Roof Terrace had been withdrawn.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings held on the 10 and the 17 September be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Sub-Committee noted the supplementary papers from the applicant and crime figure details from the Licensing Authority.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The Licensing Authority reported that plans had been submitted and the Service Manager had met the applicant on site to see if agreement could be reached regarding the positioning of the fixed odds betting machines as the shop was narrow and the location of these machines would not allow for satisfactory monitoring.  The licensing authority also raised concerns with the high level of crime and disorder associated with betting shops.  It was stated that a recent visit to a Paddy Power betting shop, the manager had reported that there was regular damage to machines and that there appeared to be under reporting of these incidents to the police.  Police officers had stated that criminal damage should always be reported. Concerns were expressed regarding the location of these premises as there was a correlation between income levels and the level of employment and gambling related problems.  This area was the second most deprived area in England for income deprivation.  The key policies and procedures circulated by the applicant were welcomed.

The applicant stated that they had met the licensing authority on site and explained the reasons for the positioning of the fixed odds betting machines.  They considered that the siting of the machines at the front of the shop had been the best option in order to be able to view the whole of the premises.  These could be moved if necessary.  There was no record of a conversation with a shop manager who had discussed under reporting of incidents. Machines were not regularly smashed.  All premises had a system of reporting and logging all incidents as governed by the Gambling Commission.  The police had stated that if an incident was unlikely to lead to an arrest it would not need to be reported.  Head Office monitored premises with CCTV for 24 hours each day.  Risk assessments were carried out. All requirements of best practice were followed. Responses were given to the representation from the ward councillor at Appendix 6 of the tabled papers.  CCTV would be installed.

In response to questions the applicant stated that the list of incidents submitted indicated that there had been 1 ½ incidents per betting shop over the period of a year. It was left to management as to whether police should be called to incidents, however if they were concerned the police should be called.  Premises would not usually have people working on their own but where this happened it would only be following a full risk assessment and if the shop was so quiet any issues could be dealt with by one person.  These particular premises would need more staff to compete with local competition. There would usually be a minimum of two staff in shops. All staff received induction training with a follow up every quarter.  Staff were encouraged to take responsibility for the outside of premises.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

The following items were ruled urgent by the Chair as it was necessary to hear the applications within seven working days following the last day for objections.

The Sub-Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn.

The noise officer reported that there was no current licence for the premises and therefore no conditions could be imposed on a temporary event notice.  There was no planning permission to convert the gallery. It was located near Goswell Road in a very residential area.  It had been stated that 40 people could attend the event and it was considered that there was insufficient means of escape and inadequate toilet facilities for this number of people.  Sound insulation would not be checked by an acoustic engineer and the sound insulation that was to be provided was not known by the noise team.  No plans had been provided so it was not known how many people the venue could hold.

The applicant stated that he was experienced in operating late night events.  SIA door supervisors would be used and he had experienced only one police call out in four years.  He stated that their behaviour would impact as little as possible on the surrounding area.  This was a short let and was the only event to be held this year. The police had not objected following consultation and responding to their concerns.  Although conditions could not be applied they could operate with those in mind.  The event was expected to finish at 6am and customers would go by cab to a pre-advertised after party event in Dalston.  Planning consent was not specifically required for a temporary event notice as long as there was not a permanent change in use. They were consulting with the fire brigade regarding the safe capacity and would meet with them shortly. He quoted the home office guidance paragraph 2.11 which stated that safe capacities should only be imposed where appropriate.

In response to questions it was expected that a limit of approximately 15 would be allowed in the smoking area.  Most residents were expected to be away.  A security guard was also the Head of the Residents Committee and would liaise with residents. Sound proofing would be applied to windows. The applicant stated that the numbers would not exceed 240 persons in line with the risk assessment from the Fire Brigade as tabled at the meeting.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  It was noted that the premises was about three toilets short for the number of customers.  If there was an audio leak the music would be decreased.  There was a long corridor which would help restrict noise escape.  A reduction in hours would not be possible as a second party followed on at 6am.  The applicant stated that it was not in his interests to fail to agree with the authorities.

In summary the noise officer stated that the venue was not known for its use as a club.  There were noise concerns. Sound insulation works would not be checked by an acoustic consultant.

The applicant stated that it was not in his interests to create problems.  The sound insulation had been tested in venues.  This was a one off event.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.