Agenda and minutes

Councillor Alex Diner welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined and those present were informed that the procedure was detailed in the papers.

None.

None.

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 was item B7, C1 and B8.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 23 October 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that three additional conditions had been submitted by the applicant and one representation had been withdrawn as a result.

The representative of a local resident spoke against the application.  He stated that he objected to an alcohol and music licence.  The extractor fan and the seating outside did not have planning permission.  He objected on the grounds of public nuisance and crime and disorder. There were already two local establishments that sold alcohol in a small stretch of road that was already saturated and was in a cumulative impact area.  He stated that alcohol should not be sold off the premises.  Chairs and tables outside would cause a nuisance to residents.  He asked that the application be refused but if it was granted there be five additional conditions to include the removal of the external seating area, the installation of a smoke shelter, there be no happy hour promotions, there should be no bottling up between 21:00 and 09:00 hours and proposed condition 7 should have a specific noise limit.

The Chair informed the meeting that the premises were not in a cumulative impact area. It was noted that the premises had planning consent to operate under use Class A1 and the planning service were satisfied that this application fell under A1 use.

The applicant Sally Stall, stated that a music licence was not required as music would be background level only.  The licence was not a late licence and was to run until 10 pm on Friday and Saturday. Permission had been sought for the outside seating.  She had agreed to remove one side of seating following discussion with residents.  The owners of the premises did not wish A3 use and she was therefore only working within A1 guidelines. There would be no commercial extraction and no smell escape as a result.  This would be a café with 20 – 30 patrons who would not be drinking heavily.  Following the addition of a further three proposed conditions, one of the local residents withdrew their representation.

In response to questions it was noted that off sales would be sold in closed containers.  Craft beer would be sold which was not sold in pints or cans.  Drinks would be purchased alongside food and there was no bar for standing in the premises. The applicant agreed to a condition revising the bottling out times from 21:00 hours to 09:00. Staff would be looking outside the premises to ensure that customers were not placing bikes on the railings.  There were no plans for a happy hour and there was expected to be usually 6 people outside and at the most 10 people.  The applicant advised that she was happy to accept a condition about a smoking canopy but was concerned about the cost.

In summary and in response to questions from the local resident, the applicant stated that the pipes for the extractor would be internal.  The applicant had agreed to take away the seating form one side as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The licensing officer reported that all parties had been notified of the meeting either by email of in writing.

The police representative reported that Fabric were exceptionally good in their management practices however the review had been submitted as there had been a recent history of eight incidents at the premises, including four which resulted in the death of patrons after having taken illegal drugs.  The most recent deaths had occurred in July and September 2014.  Whilst it was accepted that searches carried out at Fabric had satisfactory procedures, there had been an increase in the risk to public safety and the police had therefore put forward the minimum of an additional four conditions that were considered necessary.  The CCTV and the search conditions proposed had been accepted, whilst the installation of an ID scanning system and use of a drugs dog were under negotiation with the licensee.  It was noted that the licensee did not have an objection in principle, however, had concerns about the practical implications of deployment of drug dogs.

The press and public were excluded at this stage of the meeting to consider the exempt papers and upon return the Sub-Committee asked questions of the police.

In response to questions, the police informed the Sub-Committee that generally engagement with the licensee had been good, however recently, where efforts to improve the security and search regime were required, there had been delays in making progress.  Police dogs were successfully used around crowded transport hubs.  The police did not consider that deployment of drugs dogs for two hours only was sufficient and requested that dogs be used for 50% of the hours of operation to allow flexibility.  It was expected that the person would walk pass the dog rather than for the dog to pass along the queue.  A static position would not give off a scent. The police considered that reducing the age of patrons to 18 would not reduce the drug issue at this stage so was no longer a condition that was being sought.  The police considered that the licensee would be able to source dogs in the private sector.

A local resident who lived two minutes from Fabric, reported that the nature of the clientele had changed over the years.  Noise nuisance on Friday and Saturday evenings was intolerable and there were no security staff around to deal with any issues in the early hours of the morning.  The Sub-Committee noted that this was an issue every weekend and could happen at any time throughout the night.  They had regular contact with the licensing team and had attended meetings with Fabric but the security staff were not employed in this area where clientele may take drugs.  It was reported that issues had become worse in the last year. Another local resident agreed and reported that he had often been offered drugs in the area. There was evidence of crime and disorder and also public nuisance with vomiting/urination and noise from patrons.  The siting of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

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

The police reported that in April 2014, two women were served alcohol without being asked for ID and this was then opened for them before they left the premises.  A number of breaches of conditions were found at the time of a further visit to the premises and the applicant was called in to an officer panel.  In November 2014 a further visit was made and it was noted that CCTV was still not operating.  There was a concern that, on the night of the application for the temporary event notice, there would be people in the area who would have already consumed high levels of alcohol and would be vulnerable to being involved in crime, either as a victim or perpetrator.  The emergency services would already be stretched to the limit and there would be pressure placed on staff to refuse to sell to customers when drunk.

In response to questions, it was noted that the premises were located in a very busy part of Upper Street, near Highbury Corner and Holloway Road.  The police considered that the combination of poor management and the location were both primary reasons for the objection to the application.  They were concerned that there could be problems both inside and outside the premises with the large number of people in the area at that time of the morning.

The licensee reported that the CCTV had now been fixed.  All issues found had been addressed.  The premises were situated in the least busy end of Upper Street. It was expected that, in the early hours of New Years Day morning there would only be local people in the area.  They stopped opening bottles for customers once she was aware that this should not be done. The only item that was picked up on the second visit was the CCTV. 

In response to questions, the licensee reported that she had smiled but she was not intending to be rude to the police, but was smiling at customers in the shop.  They did not ask for ID in the first instance as they knew the customers as regulars.  It was rare that customers asked for bottles to be opened and now they would not open bottles for customers.  They would not serve customers who were drunk.  The licensee had been in the premises for four years and all staff took their job seriously and did not serve underage. It was stated that the CCTV had now been installed. There was a delay as there had been a misunderstanding about the length of time that recordings needed to be kept but this had now been rectified.

In summary the police stated they had concerns that the CCTV had been installed following an objection to the TENs application.  They considered that the refusals and training logs were not fully completed.  They still considered that the management of the premises should run to a high standard, particularly on New Year’s Day.  The licensee reported that the CCTV was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

RESOLVED:

That the exempt information in the appendix to agenda item B8 be noted (See Minute No 32 for decision).