Agenda and minutes

Councillor Nick Wayne 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that there was a letter from the applicant to interested parties which had been circulated separately to the agenda.  There had been no response from the interested parties to this letter.  This would be interleaved with the agenda papers. There had been no objections from responsible authorities.

A local resident raised concerns about the different types of alcohol that would be sold on the premises. She stated that the 15% of space allocated for display should be imposed on the room at the rear and that plans for the premises would need to be amended.  She raised concerns that alcohol would not be served with a meal and waiting staff would have to deal with customers who were intoxicated. She asked that, should the licence be granted, there be a condition that sake be the only alcohol served on the premises.

The applicant’s representative was happy to accept a condition that on sales be restricted to sake only.  He stated that the back room area had a capacity for 20 people and this area would be used for tasting.  The applicant had over eight years’ experience and the premises was used to sell specialist Japanese food and tableware.  Customers had asked to taste sake but as it was expensive and did not keep longer than three days once opened, samples could not be given away. The owner wished to maintain a quiet environment in the premises. He lived above the premises and would not want to live above a rowdy bar.  The licence was not transferable as this was not agreed in the lease.  There had been no complaints about the premises. Similar niche premises in the area had licences granted.  The cumulative impact policy was not absolute, there would be a capacity of 20 people, the hours fell within licensing policy 8 and the style of operation was not alcohol led.  The applicant’s representative stated that this type of premises suited the area, did not fit with the late night economy and would uphold the licensing objectives. He stated that there would be a dedicated operator, and as the application was policy compliant it should be granted with the conditions proposed.

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Kojima, Islington High Street, N1 8EG, be granted to allow:-

a)     The sale of alcohol, for consumption on the premises, from 11 am until 9pm Monday to Sunday.

b)     The premises to be open to the public from 11 am until 9.30pm Monday to Sunday.

2)       That conditions outlined on page 45 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following additional condition:-

·        That on sales be restricted to the sale of sake only.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214.

The licensing officer reported that there had been no representations from the responsible authorities.  The noise team had reported no complaints since 2011 when Brewdog had operated at the premises previously.  He stated that there were tabled documents in support of the application from the applicant which would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The applicant advised of amendments to conditions 33-35 to restrict hours from 9am to 9pm.

The interested party reported that she had not seen the additional information until the evening of the meeting.  The Chair advised that there could be a short recess for the interested party to read the information.  The interested party stated that she would continue with the hearing. 

The interested party stated that the premises already had a licence for the sale of alcohol which required food to be served with alcohol.  She raised concerns regarding the loss of this condition in a sensitive location which had a number of licensed premises.  She stated that the impact on the area would be considerable.  There would be a capacity of 100 people with another 24 sitting outside with no requirement to eat.  There would be the cumulative impact of people eating/drinking at one location and then moving onto other premises creating a disturbance to local residents.  She considered that the proposal for brewing was a smokescreen and there was a substantial cumulative impact which had not been dealt with.

In response to questions the local resident stated that she would not want outside drinking, however if a licence was granted to include outside drinking she would want it restricted to end at 7pm.

The applicant’s representative stated that Brewdog was a successful business and this branch would offer a brewing experience, where you could shop and buy and would have a convivial bar with board games.  It was not a loud music venue. There were a number of licensed premises with later hours in the vicinity with outside seating.  It was proposed to cease use of the tables and chairs at 10pm.  They had engaged with the resident who lived above the premises and he had not come back with further comments.  They would be closed late night when neighbouring venues were still open.  Brewdog did not equal irresponsible retailing.  The Managing Director stated that the Brewdog business had begun 10 years ago and now had 50 sites worldwide. A Hopworks had been opened in Glasgow and Manchester and they had a strong affinity to the home brewing movement.  !0% of the profits went to the staff and 10% went to a charity of their choice.  The business was mission focussed and about the community. The owners wanted home brewers to have the same benefits they’d had. The conditions should offer comfort to residents.  About twelve of their branches were beneath residential property and they had found that their neighbours were amongst their best customers.

In response to questions it was noted that a licence had been inherited which could be used the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 215.

The licensing officer reported that the hours requested had been amended to 9am to 11pm on Monday to Sundays.  These hours should also be reflected in condition 12. The opening hours would be from 7am to 11pm.  It was noted that representation 4 was a representation from a local business which had a terminal hour of 3am, who was present at the meeting.

The Chair reported that the financial impact on another business should not be taken into account.  The application was not in a cumulative impact area.

The interested party, through a translator, stated that his premises was just doors away and if this licence was granted it would kill his business.  Applications should benefit the area and not make it worse.  There were four or five business that were identical and many businesses of this type would not improve the area.

The applicant’s representative stated that the interested party had not been accurately translated. The Chair considered that the Sub-Committee had understood the main points of the submissions.

The applicant’s representative reported that this was a family business and they previously had an off licence nearby and lived five minutes walk away.  They understood the area well.  The husband and wife were both personal licence holders.  They wanted to be different from other shops and were looking to sell greener, more organic products.  A full refurbishment would be completed in two to three weeks.  There would be four people working in the premises and their 20 year old son would be obtaining a personal licence.  The applicant had taken on board the concerns of the interested parties.  Conditions had been agreed.

In response to questions regarding the impact on the area the representative reported that conditions were extensive, the licence was requested in core hours, alcohol was expected to be 15% of the sale, they wished to sell a different product to provide what the consumer wanted.  The applicants had a clean record and were serious about what they were doing.

In summary, the interested party stated that the area would not be able to handle the number of shops and they would be affected.

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Newington Park Supermarket, 135 Newington Green Road, N1 4RA be granted to allow:-

a)     The sale by retail of alcohol, off sales, Mondays to Sundays from 9am until 11pm.

b)     Opening hours to be:- Mondays to Sundays from 7am until 11pm.

2)       That conditions detailed on page 132 of the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following amendment.

Condition 12 to read.  At least two members of staff shall be on the shop floor between 9pm and 11pm.

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 applicant’s representative amended the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.