Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Councillor Emma Plouviez was elected as the Chair of the committee.

2.1  There was no apologies for absence.

3.1  There were no apologies for absence.

4.1  The attendees noted at the meeting the hearing procedure.

Decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

·  The prevention of crime and disorder;

·  Public safety;

·  Prevention of public nuisance;

·  The protection of children from harm;

The application be refused in accordance with Licensing Policy LP4, LP5 and LP14 within the Council’s licensing statement.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from responsible authorities (Licensing and Public Health) and other persons, and the responses given by the applicant, believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined.

The Sub-committee in reaching the above decision considered the:

1. impact the sale of alcohol at the premises would have on the public nuisance and crime and disorder already being experienced in the area around the premises resulting from the high concentration of licenced premises in that area;
2. impact the existing high concentration of licenced premises had on persons living in the area; and
3. measures proposed by the applicant to ensure that the sale of alcohol would not add to the same.

The applicant’s representative mentioned when addressing the Licensing Sub-committee that if the application was granted, the applicant intended to reduce the number of snooker tables at the proposed snooker hall from seven to three tables.  This reduction in the number of tables would increase the number of people at the premises, which was of concern to the Sub-committee.  During discussions regarding the same it was proposed by the applicant’s representative that imposing a capacity of 60 persons (40 on the ground floor and 20 in the basement) would be an appropriate measure to ensure the number of people at the premises did not increase if some of the snooker tables shown on the plan submitted with the application were removed.

The applicant’s representative also made representations that the type of licensed premises was relevant to the problems of nuisance and disorder resulting from a number of licensed premises concentrated in one area and the existing licence for the off sale of alcohol from the premises.

The Licensing Sub-committee heard from residents that there were already problems with public nuisance and crime and disorder resulting from the existing licensed premises in the area and that the existing licence was for the sale of alcohol off the premises which was very different to the activity being applied for as there was no consumption of alcohol at the premises under the existing licence.

On balance, the Licensing Sub-committee were not satisfied that the measures proposed would be adequate to ensure that crime and disorder/public nuisance would not result from people drinking at another premises in an area with a high concentration of people drinking already.

Public informative

The applicant is reminded of the need to operate the premises according to any current planning permission relating to its user class, conditions and hours.

It also should be noted for the public record that  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.

5.1  The principal licensing officer introduced the application for a premises licence for Famous, 158 Stoke Newington Road, N16 7UY.  The proposed licensable activities were for indoor sporting events, late night refreshments and the supply of alcohol (on premises).  The Principal Licensing Officer reported that representations had been submitted by the Responsible Authorities (Licensing and Public Health) and as well as a number of objections by local residents. Local residents had signed a petition, which had been circulated as part of the additional papers for the hearing. The attendees noted that the Police had withdrawn their representation. The applicant had agreed with the Police that alcohol will cease at 22:30hrs Sunday – Thursday and at 23:30hrs on Friday and Saturday and the premises would close 30 minutes later. The applicant had also agreed with the Police a number of further conditions.

5.2  The applicant’s representative, Mr Duncan Craig, made his submission to the committee highlighting conditions derived from the Operating Schedule including Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), staff training and the recording of incidents in an incident book. Mr Craig also highlighted his client’s acceptance of the Police conditions and that the maximum number of smokers outside the premises would be five.  Mr Craig also highlighted that the number of pool tables in the premises was actually three not seven; one upstairs, two downstairs. Mr Craig’s also brought to the attention of the committee that the client had also reduced the operating hours and the Police had withdrawn their representations.

5.3  In a response to question from the Chair, Mr Craig replied that there were 1000s of premises that were called one thing but in reality were another. A snooker club with pool tables was no different.  Mr Craig added that pool tables do not normally feature in these kind of applications. The Chair insisted that the shift from snooker to pool tables was indication that the application had changed.

5.4  David Tuitt, Business Regulation Team Leader – Licensing and Technical Support, made his representation at the meeting, highlighting that the premises was within the boundary of the Dalston Special Policy Area (SPA) and because of this LP14 applies, in that the premises must show a high standards of management, quality and track record of management and good character of the applicant. Mr Tuitt also noted that the premises change to a snooker club would result in a significant change in its operation from what is currently authorised.

5.5  Matt Clack, Public Health Strategist, made a representation at the meeting against the application. The representation had been made under the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective(s). As mentioned, the premises is in the Dalston SPA and Dalston has been defined as a cumulative impact area. The area already has sufficient premises to meet demand and additional outlets supplying alcohol will be detrimental to the local residents in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour etc. A number of alcohol related incidents had been identified in the area where the premises are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

·  The prevention of crime and disorder;

·  Public safety;

·  Prevention of public nuisance;

·  The protection of children from harm;

The application be refused in accordance with Licensing Policy LP4, LP5 and LP13 within the Council’s licensing statement.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from responsible authorities (Licensing and Public Health) and other persons, and the responses given by the applicant, believed that the granting of the variation application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined.

The Sub-committee in reaching the above decision considered the:

1. impact the sale of alcohol at the premises late at night would have on the public nuisance and crime and disorder already being experienced in the area around the premises resulting from the high concentration of licenced premises in that area;
2. impact the existing high concentration of licenced premises had on persons living in the area; and
3. measures proposed by the applicant to ensure that the sale of alcohol would not add to the same.

The Police expanded on their initial representation before the hearing that they believed that allowing alcohol to be sold at the premises from 23:00 to the early hours of the morning would result in people consuming further alcohol in addition to the alcohol previously consumed at other premises.

The Licensing Sub-committee were concerned that the proposed variation would result in people continuing to consume alcohol for longer rather than stopping or taking a break from the same whilst they ate food at the premises.

During discussions regarding the same it was proposed by the applicant’s representative that requiring SIA door staff to be present at the premises from 23:00 would be an appropriate measure.

Such measure the Licensing Sub-committee did not believe was an exceptional circumstance that would address the impact that granting the additional hours for the sale of alcohol late at night would have on the licensing objectives.

On balance, the Licensing Sub-committee were not satisfied that the measures proposed would be adequate to ensure that crime and disorder/public nuisance would not result from people drinking into the early hours of the morning at the premises in an area with a high concentration of people drinking already.

Public informative

The applicant is reminded of the need to operate the premises according to any current planning permission relating to its user class, conditions and hours.

It also should be noted for the public record that the local planning authority should draw no inference or be bound by this decision with regard to any future planning application which may be made.

6.1  The principal licensing officer introduced the application to vary the premises licence for the Persian Restaurant, 148 Shoreditch High Street, E1 6JE.  The application was for the supply of alcohol (On Premises).  The responsible authorities (Licensing and Public Health) had made representation and the Police had also submitted a written representation in their absence from the meeting.

6.2  Mr Duncan Craig, representing the applicant, began by explaining that the variation to the premises licence was to extend the sale of alcohol on the premises until 0200hrs Sunday-Thursday and until 0400hrs on Friday-Saturday. Mr Craig highlighted an amendment to condition 10. It would now be that alcohol would be ancillary to a table meal. Mr Craig also highlighted a further additional condition:  a Security Industry Authority (SIA) door staff were to be present at the premises from 23:00 hours.  Mr Craig added that the premises was different from the public houses in the area and there had not been any objections to how the premises was currently operated. Ownership of the premises had been transferred over from the Grandfather in 2006.  Mr Craig added that his client had a good track record at the premises.

6.3  David Tuitt, Business Regulation Team Leader – Licensing and Technical Support, made his representation at the meeting, highlighting that the premises was in the Shoreditch SPA therefore LP13 applied. The area had been identified as suffering from negative cumulative impact as a result of the high concentration of licensed premises in the area. The area suffers from high volumes of crime.  Mr Tuitt queried in light of the amended condition about alcohol being ancillary to a table meal and the additional condition of SIA door staff after 23:00hours, would this qualify as exceptional circumstances to justify the granting of the licence?

6.4  Matt Clack, Public Health Strategist, made a representation at the meeting and like licensing highlighted that the premises was in the Shoreditch SPA and therefore LP13 applied. Shoreditch is defined as a cumulative impact area. It was felt that there was already sufficient premises to meet demand and any additional outlets supplying alcohol will be detrimental to local residents.  The area also has high incidences of crime and violence including those alcohol-related. Public Health were of the view that additional conditions, such as alcohol being ancillary to a table meal, did not count as exceptional circumstances and therefore the application should not be granted.

6.5  In a response to questions from the Chair, the applicant replied that several of the customers in the restaurant came from a nearby hotel and tended to stay between 30 to 40 minutes on the premises.

6.6  Mr Craig explained that only a handful of premises in the area now have alcohol ancillary to a table meal. This premises was a restaurant not a takeaway. The premises had a capacity of 32 and all food was served on porcelain plates.  The restaurant was now seeking to expand to sell alcohol.

6.9  Summing up, Mr Craig remind  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  There were no Temporary Event Notices discussed at the meeting.