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 6 June 2019 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that additional photographs from a local resident had been circulated to members of the Sub-Committee.

The licensing authority reported that the premises were in a cumulative impact area.  It was reported that the applicant had not shown in the application how the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.  The application had shown little detail.

In response to questions regarding the ownership of the premises, the Chair of the Sub-Committee stated that there was no evidence of the applicant deliberately misleading the Sub-Committee and this was not likely to be a material consideration.

The officer from the public health team stated that the area already had a high density of licensed premises.  The premises were located in an area where there were seven off licences per thousand residents; higher than the Islington average of three. It was considered that there were already high levels of alcohol related harm in the area and further premises would add to the cumulative impact.

A local resident stated that another premises would be likely to add to crime and disorder.  There was already an issue in the nearby parks with ASB and drug dealing.  This application was for a new premise which would be likely to add to the cumulative impact and it was considered the impact had not been addressed or rebutted by the applicant. Duncan Street was a particularly problematic area and councillors had been working closely with the police. They had been informed that this was one of two major crime spots that the police were frequently called to and received Parkguard visits.  Littering including drug paraphernalia was not a rare occurrence and many front doors had been reinforced to prevent entry.  Some residents were worried about leaving their flats. The park area was two minutes’ walk away from the premises and there had been increasing littering including drinking bottles cans, knives and even bleach.  This was a speculative application which had not been made by the owner of the premises and the Sub-Committee were asked to reject the application. A second resident stated that there was an increasing number of bottles and syringes littering the area.  There was a burden on the applicant to demonstrate a negative cumulative impact and this was a hard area to rebut that presumption as a high concentration of licensed premises already existed.  This was directly in front of a primary school and was probably the worst area that the Sub-Committee could grant against the policy. 

The applicant’s representative clarified that the applicant was applying as a sole trader, which was perfectly legal.  He had four other premises in London and would become the designated premises supervisor of this premises if the licence was granted.  It was recognised that the original application was not strong on conditions but additional conditions had now been circulated.  There would be two staff on the premises after 6pm and the application was within framework hours.  The licensee could not be held responsible for previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee stated for the record that he had worked previously with the applicant’s representative, however he would deal with the application with the same independence as he always used when considering applications.

He also noted the planning issues detailed in the papers and stated that the applicant could seek an adjournment at any time and if there was no request, the members would consider the application on its merits.

The licensing officer stated that the licence holder had arranged a meeting which a few residents had attended.  One resident had withdrawn their objection following this meeting. He reported that the residents who had attended had been broadly happy.  Emails had been received in support but these had not met the representation deadline.  The current licence had later hours than the current application and this licence could be used if this application was rejected. However, the applicant would have to put the previous layout back as the change in plan was significant.

The Sub-Committee noted that there was a planning application that had been refused and which was currently going through an appeal process.  The planning team were currently holding off enforcement until the appeal had been determined.  If the licensing application was granted this would need to be revisited. 

The licensing authority stated that their representation was still maintained.  There were outstanding planning and building regulation issues and they did not have confidence in the licensee to promote the licensing objectives given the scant regard given to legislation. The additional area applied for was double the size of the current licensed area.

The planning officer advised that the applicant had been served an enforcement notice relating to the upper floors. A retrospective application had been refused and an appeal lodged. It was noted that if the licence was granted then more urgent enforcement action may need to be considered in terms of noise nuisance.

The interested parties raised concerns regarding the scale and impact of the property. The property was unlawfully built. It was stated that it was clear in licensing policy 1 that planning consent was expected to be in place.  The application had been refused on the grounds of amenity and it was considered that this was relevant to the licensing application.  They considered that this raised concerns relevant to the promotion of the licensing objectives. They stated that the works had increased the area four fold. This applicant had stated that this was a family restaurant but it could result in 300 covers with over 900 customers many of which would attend by car.  The facilities were not suitable for live music and the applicant had shown a general disregard for planning and procedure and the application should be refused. The air conditioning units had been tested and it had been necessary for the noise team to visit.  Opening hours were longer than the extractor fans were expected to operate.

In response to questions and concerns that this was being called a family  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

One resident raised objections on the grounds of public nuisance.  They stated there would be an impact on residents in a densely populated area. There had been no clarity with regards to the number of people and the management of noise and traffic. This was a densely populated area with narrow streets.  Lighting or sound could not be controlled.  The residents had been informed that it would be impossible to control numbers.  This had been marketed similarly to Covent Garden events but this was not located in the same type of area. A second resident stated that there would be public nuisance.  The applicant would have no control over the dispersal from these events and no control over numbers attending.  They considered that, if the application was refused the applicant could use temporary event notices which would not prevent them from holding these events. The Sub-Committee was asked to consider licensing policies 21 and 22 in relation to public nuisance or restrict events to the arcade area and to 8pm. They asked the Sub-Committee to consider licensing policy 25 in relation to dispersal.  No recorded music should be heard outside of the site boundary. It was further noted that there had been a marked increase in people loitering outside, over the past six or seven months with people sitting on windowsills during the day.  The residents would be very concerned if this was to be replicated during the evenings. 

The applicant stated that they would not be adding to the cumulative impact.  These events would be part of the opening of Islington Square, the new anchor for the Town Centre.  There was to be a cinema, gym, offices, the Theatre and 300 apartments.  They would need to attract local people into the development and off their laptops. There would be art, furniture, photography classes, Christmas food etc.  They would want to be neighbourly and have planning conditions to protect amenity.  During the evening they would have onsite security and a management plan. If the application was successful, the licence would commence in October as the consultation period had been extended. They were taking steps to manage the smoking areas for construction workers. The smoking areas would be on the estate once opened. Security would be encouraging patrons to exit via Upper Street. Conditions had been agreed with the noise service.  Residents would be living on the estate and they would want to keep noise to a low level.  They consulted with the residents and met on a monthly basis. There would be a security team in place, CCTV and the police would also have an office on the estate which they could work from.

In response to questions, it was noted that there would be a phased opening.  Events would be mainly small with approximately 60 people.  Mainly ticketed events. There was expected to be a large event around Christmas for 500 people with amplified music for a community choir and a jazz performer. It was noted that 499 people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.