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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Joe Caluori and Paul Convery.

Councillor Kadeema Woodbyrne substituted for Councillor Joe Caluori and Councillor Satnam Gill substituted for Councillor Paul Convery.

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 the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 3 December 2019 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The licensing officer reported that additional papers from the applicant had been circulated. He reported that representations on pages 41 and 42 had not been withdrawn.  The interested party who had submitted the representation on page 44 was present at the meeting.  The interested party regarding the representation on page 40 had withdrawn all concerns except for those regarding the rear garden.  He had stated that the proposed closing time of 9pm for the rear garden was better but it should preferably not be used at all.

The noise officer reported that the conditions with the applicant were mainly agreed apart from 15/16 and 17 on the tabled paper from the noise team.  She stated that Essex Road was noisy but as you moved behind the premises, away from the main road, it became a quiet residential area with few cars. Noise from the patrons would be dominant and would cause a nuisance.  Regarding proposed condition 16, it was stated that 9pm was a compromise. Customers would need supervision and could disturb residents. Regarding the front area, she had agreed an 11pm clearing time.  She stated that conditions 16 and 17 had not yet been agreed and she raised concerns about BBQ smells creating a public nuisance so near residential properties.

The applicant stated that the issue for both parties was the difference in time between 9 or 10pm for the garden at the rear.  The timing for the beer garden was already existing at 10pm and had received no complaints. If complaints were made, then the hours could then be reconsidered.  The beer garden was not a large space.

The legal officer advised that, as this was a variation application, it could be argued that it may not be reasonable to reduce the closing time in the rear garden by one hour. The rear garden was not on the existing plan, however, this was not a statutory requirement unless there was a bar in the garden. The Sub-Committee could decide if it was reasonable and proportionate to amend the timing on the rear garden.

The applicant stated that there was no evidence that the rear garden had caused any problems.  It had been used before September and the noise team would have been aware of issues if there had been any. If complaints were received the premises could be reviewed. 

It was noted that the main concern for the resident who lived near to the premises was the use of the garden. The resident in attendance at the meeting had stated that the garden had been used previously.

In response to questions, it was noted that the beer garden had been previously used for a considerable period of time and there had been no evidence submitted that it would cause a problem before 10pm.  It was noted that the new licensee had moved in during October 2019. The noise officer disputed that the garden had an established use.  This was a densely occupied and quiet area and she would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

The licensing officer reported that there had been no submissions in advance from the licensee. A layout plan of the premises was circulated with the agenda.

The licensing authority stated that no application had been made for a special treatment licence and legal proceedings would commence.  The review was supported by the police, public health, community safety and trading standards.  The premises were in a very poor state of repair. Despite numerous attempts to engage the licensee since April 2019 there had been no response.

Photos were tabled indicating that stock had been removed and the premises had been tidied up.  The police officer advised that he had visited the premises on Monday 3 February and he had not considered much had changed in the premises at the time.

He stated that although he couldn’t comment on the building work that had reportedly taken place, however items were still available on the counter in large quantities.

The police officer stated that all engagement efforts had failed.  The licensee had no willingness to resolve issues. Although the premises could not be linked to specific crimes it was considered that the stock held should not be in licensed premises and management standards fell short.

The trading standards officer reported that there had been no engagement from the licensee.  A warning letter had been sent after illicit alcohol had been found on display in the premises.  At a further visit, more alcohol had been found. Standards of management were lacking and trading standards supported revocation or a suspension with modification of conditions.

The officer from public health stated that the premises were only 350m away from Better Lives recovery service. The people in treatment at this service should not have easy access to high strength alcohol or drug paraphernalia.

The community safety officer stated that there were significant challenges in the Finsbury Park/ Nags Head area relating to drug use/anti-social behaviour and homelessness. There had been partnership working between the police, the Council and local business to improve the safety and welfare of residents. They would have concerns about a premises that was selling high strength alcohol and drug paraphernalia.

The licensee’s representative stated that there had been no items sold from the premises that was not legally allowed to be sold.  Invoices were available for the goods.  Items had been purchased from a cash and carry which had no English writing on. He had taken pictures and had shown these to the responsible authorities.  He stated that substantial changes had taken place at the premises and paraphernalia had been moved away from the children’s area. The licensee had been in trade since 2006 and was not given the time required to make changes.  He proposed a DPS change and stated that things had changed quite a bit. He stated that he proposed eight conditions as the way forward. Improvements had started and pictures and invoices were available.

In response to a question about engagement, the licensee’s representative stated that there was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.