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.

Received from Councillors Joe Caluori and Paul Convery.

Councillor Vivien Cutler substituted for Councillor Paul Convery and Councillor Kadeema Woodbyrne for Councillor Joe Caluori.

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 order of business would be as stated on the agenda.

The Licensing Officer had no additional information to report.

The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that the premises was situated in a  cumulative impact area and the application sought to extend the hours operated. The current conditions required food to be sold with alcohol. However, there was photo evidence available in the agenda pack indicating that alcohol was being sold without food. Complaints had been made to the Council via the ASB reporting line about the numbers of people congregating outside the premises and not having a meal with their drinks.  She further noted that current planning permission was not in line with the times proposed on the new application and asked whether it had been sought. There had been no representations received from the Noise Team, although complaints had been made to the Council’s ASB line.

One of the interested parties stated that, when the previous licence had been applied for in 2014, it had been for similar late hours, straight drinking, no food service and Sunday opening.  The application was rejected by the Licensing Sub-Committee in 2015 and a condition was applied that alcohol should be ancillary to a meal.  This had worked for local residents.  Nothing had changed as far as the premises being in the Bunhill cumulative impact area was concerned, apart from more disturbances on the street as a result of alcohol.  This application was for cocktails, made from strong alcohol, vertical drinking and gin parties, which had been advertised by the premises. There was no need for another unrestricted bar in the area, which would tempt people from the pubs to these premises.  It did not matter whether people were standing or sitting down in the premises. The current conditions on the licence were admirable. There should be no change in hours at the premises, alcohol should remain ancillary to food and there should be no Sunday opening. 

For the record, Councillor Wayne stated that he had been a member of the Sub-Committee which had agreed the conditions on the licence in 2014.

Another interested party stated that the current managers had wanted “over and above” since they had moved in and they clearly wanted to run a cocktail and gin bar, with stag and hen parties too.  On social media and the website, alcohol was at the forefront of who the managers were. They had broken the terms of their licence by having tables and chair outside the premises and vertical drinking both inside and outside the premises.  They should not be rewarded by allowing any new arrangements.  It was the wrong place for a cocktail bar.

Another interested party said that they lived opposite the premises and noted that fewer people had been congregating outside the premises. If permission was granted to extend the operating hours, it was likely that his sleep would be disturbed.

In response to members’ questions to the interested parties, it was noted that the noise was from people congregating on the street rather than the premises and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The Licensing Officer had no additional information to report.

The Trading Standards representative reported that the premises had been included as part of a visit to all off licences in the Highbury Barn and Blackstock Road area on 29 May 2019 to remind them of the importance of checking young people’s identification, operating Challenge 25 and maintaining refusal and training registers.  Premises in this particular area were being targeted as information had been received from an Islington social worker that a 15 year old client of theirs had been repeatedly hospitalised after consuming alcohol purchased from off licences in the area. The social worker had indicated on the day following the visit by Trading Standards that it was this particular premises, Shivas Newsagent, who had sold the alcohol to the young person concerned.  During the visit, the licensee appeared to be unaware of his responsibilities as a manager of a licensed premises and was not aware that it was an offence to sell alcohol to a person under the age of 18 years of age and that he did not keep a refusals register as he had never refused a sale. The Trading Standards representative advised him to attend the next training session on age restricted products and licensee responsibilities.  She recommended that, as there were currently no additional conditions on the licence, a short term suspension of the licence would be appropriate to enable the Licensing policies and procedures to be put in place.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee as to whether the young person who had been hospitalised had been interviewed, the Trading Standards representative confirmed that they had not as no criminal proceedings had been instigated.   There were a number of licensed premises in this vicinity and it would be difficult to prove that all of the alcohol purchases made by the 15 year old who had been hospitalised came from Shivas Newsagent.

The Trading Standards’ representative reported that a sale from the premises to an under age person had been made on 4 June 2019 by the licensee and DPS of the premises, who had been spoken to on 29 May 2019, during a visit to the premises.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, she said that she had been outside the premises while the sale was made but had subsequently entered with Police officers once the sale had been made. She confirmed that a standard test purchase had taken place and that there had been no distractions to the seller whilst the purchase took place.  A member of the Sub-Committee noted a reference on in the agenda pack to Polish lager available for sale on the premises and queried whether duty had been paid on this and whether enquiries had been made as to where it was purchased.  The Trading Standards representative said that no invoices had been produced and that she had been advised that the alcohol was on the premises when the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

The Licensing Officer had no additional information to report.

The Trading Standards Officer reported that a failed test purchase of alcohol by a minor had been made at the premises on 30 April 2019. A follow up letter sent by Trading Standards about this incident and to extend an invitation to a training session for staff at the premises had received no response from the licensee.

A further failed test purchase was made on 4 June 2019, resulting in the Police serving a Penalty Notice for Disorder on the seller. Although Challenge 25 posters were displayed in the premises, the licensee had said at the time of the visit that he had provided refresher training to staff on Challenge 25, but there were no records available of this training.  She suggested that a suspension of the premises licence would be appropriate in the circumstances.

The Police Licensing Officer reported on Islington’s concern about the importance of protecting children from harm. The sales of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 were concerning. He re-iterated that, although Challenge 25 posters were on display on the premises, there was no real substance paid to them by staff.  There was a lack of formal training displayed by the staff and the refusals register had not been completed since 2014.  He supported the Trading Standards request for a review of the premises licence and concurred with the view that a suspension of the licence should be considered.

The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that she fully supported Trading Services’ review. She was worried about the lack of training of staff, that a refusals’ register was not being maintained and that staff were not following the Challenge 25 policy.  She noted that high strength beers were sold at the premises and requested that they join the Council’s “Reduce Strength Campaign”.  She noted further that the licensee of these premises also managed another off licence premises nearby, which was operated 24 hours, and neither premises was involved in the campaign. The licensee had displayed a disregard for the conditions on his licence. She was particularly concerned that the Korkmaz Food Centre premises licence was from 06.00am to 02.00am.

The Public Health representative echoed the concerns of colleagues in Trading Standards, the Police and the Licensing Authority. The health risks and high levels of harm associated with the consumption of alcohol by young people was detailed in her written representation.

The Licensee’s legal representative gave some background details on the premises, stating that the licensee, who was also the DPS and a director, had purchased the premises in 2011. The premises was a supermarket and alcohol sales represented just 10% of sales, so it was not an off licence. The DPS attended the premises day to day, but the premises manager did not attend every day.  Twelve staff worked at the premises, five of whom operated the tills.  The premises was fairly large and well established.  The breach of condition was very serious and went to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.