Agenda and minutes

Councillor Shaikh welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Weekes.

Councillor Staff substituted for Councillor Weekes.

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 per the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 2^nd February 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair of the Committee opened by asking the licensing officer for any additional information that had become available since the publication of the agenda. In response, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub Committee that there had been a slight typo on the opening time on the variation application in the agenda pack and corrected it to 10am each day. The Licensing Officer also reported that the applicant had now agreed to all the police conditions, but the representation had not been withdrawn.

When asked by the Committee to outline their representation, the Police informed members that they had been Informed by the applicant’s solicitor that the applicant did now accept the police conditions. However, the reason the responsible authority for policing hadn’t withdrawn their objection was because they hadn’t yet seen a hire agreement, to which they expressed hope that it was just an oversight. The Police also stated that while the applicant had completed box three on variation conditions, outlining activities, the responsible authority was still not able to understand specifically what the activities would entail. The responsible authority stated that the Sub Committee should only approve the licence if they were happy with the proposed use of the premises, in line with the conditions.

The Police went on to say that the engagement to date from the applicant had not been to the standard that they would expect and was not certain that the conditions proposed were proportionate or would best reflect the licensing objectives but was willing to listen to further clarifications / evidence.

When asked by the Committee to outline their representation, the Licensing Authority stated their objection remained as it stood in the published agenda pack. The main concern centred on the submitted fire risk assessment, which showed several deficiencies and added that the Licensing Authority had not seen anything to date to show that it had been rectified. There was also concern regarding electrical wiring and gas safety issues. These concerns were amplified by the premises being particularly large with residential units above, and that it would pose a danger to residents as well as customers. The Licensing Authority stated they too had no feedback from the applicants until today’s hearing and that the matter had been going on for some time, with the case itself, adjourned repeatedly.

The Chair of the Committee asked the Licensing Authority whether Building Control had been involved with the matter, to which the Licensing Authority stated that Building Control had not heard anything in respect of the application, but that the applicant would likely need a building inspector to approve any remedial, structural works and no evidence had been provided to date that could show this had been done.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to present their case, the Legal Representative for the applicant stated that the proposed conditions from the police had been accepted highlighted that the applicant had tabled two restrictive changes as part of the application – to remove the sale of alcohol off-premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee opened by asking the licensing officer for any additional information that had become available since the publication of the agenda. In response, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that additional material had been forwarded to the residents that members of the Sub-Committee also had sight of. In respect of representations, the Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that there was one on page 100 which didn’t disclose address so should be disregarded. Pg 113 withdrawn objection.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to outline their objection, the interested party - a resident who lived above the premises – responded, stating that the building was Grade II listed and dated from 1793, it was old, small, and fragile, and they were afraid if there were more activities within the building, its structural integrity might be compromised. The resident questioned the proposal that had been communicated to them that heat detection was to be integrated into the building alarm system, because it was only Noodle Brat that had the building alarm. The resident also wanted to know when the inspection referred to in the application / reports took place, as well as the fire mitigations. The resident stated that the answers they received from the applicant was not satisfactory. 

In response, the Chair of the Committee advised the resident that these questions were mostly planning regulations were mostly concerning planning regulations and asked the resident to outline any queries in relation to the licence itself and how it would affect them. The resident responded in saying that Noodle Brat currently operated on weekdays and that they were afraid that if granted an alcohol licence, the premises would be sold onto another operator. The resident also stated that they didn’t believe Noodle Brat to take the rules seriously in relation to table licences. The Licensing Officer intervened to state that the resident’s detailed objections could be found at Page 107 of the report.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to present their case, the Legal Representative for the applicant stated that the licence would only be for the building itself, and only for the on sale of alcohol consumption. The Legal Representative stated that the applicant had tried to engage with the residents who had made representations, noting that two had since withdrawn – there was difficulty in contacting some due to the anonymity of some representations. The Legal Representative stated that it was appreciated that the premises was located within a cumulative impact zone and noted that the premises would be fully closed by 11pm. Conditions with the police and licensing authority had been agreed. There would be no vertical drinking. There were two additional conditions put forward; one was to have a notice for patrons to be respectful of residents and the other was to sweep the curtilage at the end of evening.

When invited by the Legal Representative to put forward his case, the applicant told the Sub-Committee that he managed an investment business property in Clerkenwell that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee opened by asking the licensing officer for any additional information that had become available since the publication of the agenda.

In response, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that there had been a few representations from residents that were unable to attend this hearing and sent apologies. One of the representations unable to attend requested that the applicant did not play music after 10.30pm because they worked from home. Another representation unable to attend had raised doubts about the intentions of applicant and feared that in the later hours it would be run as a bar, thus causing noise, nuisance and a congregation of intoxicated persons that could obstruct access. That representation also sought to highlight a violent altercation that took place in the vicinity as part of their objection and stated that their flatmate had felt intimidated by the applicant. That representation also highlighted that they believed the applicant had failed to operate within the designated hours and was apprehensive about attending in-person. Conditions had been agreed with the Licensing Authority and Police who both haven’t made a representation. No responsible authorities had made a representation. The Licensing Officer acknowledged that there had been a crime in the vicinity, which had a CAD number, and that the applicant stated this was not connected to the premises. The Planning representation was centred on a technicality regarding the flues, but this had been withdrawn. The Licensing Officer stated that the hours required for the licence to be 12midday to 10pm on Saturdays and 12midday to 10.30pm on all other days. The premises would close at 11pm each day. The Licensing Officer also acknowledged that there had previously been noise complaints among other issues, but a lot of this was received during or relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Noise team were happy with the hours and conditions proposed.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to outline their objection, the only interested party in attendance, a resident who lived in the flat above the premises since September 2021, told members that an incident had occurred at this time last year, in which significant noise emanated upstairs from the premises. The resident stated that there were three builders, conducting works in the late hours of the night and several noise complaints had been made, ranging in the double digits. The resident stated that the building works happened exclusively and represented a statutory nuisance. The resident stated that the noise had a negative impact on their wellbeing and ability to work from home. The resident also outlined instances of private parties in the premises that occurred throughout the night, but acknowledged that the applicant had apologised, albeit taking half an hour to clear the premises. The resident also highlighted that there was no insulation within the premises and highlighted an additional incident in March 2023. The resident alleged that during that incident a lot of late-night building works had taken place and that when they challenged the applicant, it resulted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee opened by asking the licensing officer for any additional information that had become available since the publication of the agenda. In response, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that there was one resident representation querying the agreement of restaurant conditions. The applicant was aware that this was raised as a concern.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to outline their case, the applicant told members that they were new to the area and that their business was focused on serving hot meals. The sale of alcohol will help the business and help to cover expenses with food and energy bills. Currently, the business sells meals, soft drinks, and snacks. The applicant stated that they tried to contact the neighbour but received no response. They wanted to have a good relationship with the neighbour and do whatever they could do to help her.. The applicant stated they agreed to the conditions and were trying to survive as a business.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee concerning a pavement licence, and patrons drinking alcohol outside, the applicant responded that alcohol would always only be served with food and that it would always be table service. The applicant was agreeable to a minimum spend but wouldn’t be sure of what value to set.

It was noted that the premises was previously a café, and the applicant stated that they provided food such as lasagne. The applicant stated that they could adjust pavement seating. Most of the time the business closed early, usually between 9 and 10pm. The additional hours requested for the licence would only be to cover spikes in demand where the business could open for later. The applicant stated that they had few complaints previously.

RESOLVED

1) That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Triple 777, 143 Holloway Road, London, N7 8LX, be granted to allow:-

The sale by retail of alcohol, on and off supplies, Mondays to Sundays from 10am to 10pm

2) That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on page 193 to 196 of the agenda be applied to the licence, with the amendment to Condition 17 as follows: Regarding all off sales: alcohol is only to be sold for consumption off the premises where it is purchased as an ancillary to food with a minimum spend of £7 on food

An additional condition shall also apply whereby the tables and chairs on the pavements do not obstruct the entrances and exits to neighbouring properties.

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 Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Holloway Road and Finsbury Park cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee opened by asking the licensing officer for any additional information that had become available since the publication of the agenda. In response, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that there had been no further updates.

When asked by the Sub-Committee to outline their case, the applicant described their business as a hair salon. The reason for the application was that they would like to sell wine. Guests are offered a glass of wine as part of the hairdressing appointment, but this application covers the sale of that bottle to the customer if they would like to take it with them. There are a maximum of two guests in the premises at any one time, which allows greater regulation of the space, behaviour, alcohol consumption and loitering outside the premises. The applicant stated they did not wish to convert to a wine shop or any form of alcohol-led establishment. The off sale of alcohol was just an option, not the primary focus of business.

When asked by the Sub-Committee whether they wanted to expand the offer to events or have more than two guests within the shop at any one time, the applicant responded that they did not.

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of Teto Studio, 6 Shillingford Street, London, N1 2DP, be granted to allow:-

a)     To allow the sale by retail of alcohol, on & off supplies, Mondays to Sundays from 09:00 until 21:00

2)       That conditions outlined in appendix 3 and detailed on page 223 to 224 of the agenda be applied to the licence, with the additional condition as follows: the premises licence for the sale of alcohol is dependent on the operation of the premises as a hair salon.

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 Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policies 2 & 3.  The premises fall within the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact area. Licensing policy 3 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for the grant or variation of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused following the receipt of representations, unless the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that there will be no negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives. Licensing Policy 3.31-46, states that the area continues to feature as an alcohol-related crime hotspot. However, Licensing Policy 3.48 provides an exception for premises submitting comprehensive operating schedules which are small premises with a capacity of no more than fifty persons, or premises which are not alcohol-led with appropriate hours.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 4.  The Council has adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to shops and other premises selling alcohol for consumption off  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.