Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

1.1 Councillor James Peters was duly elected to chair the meeting.

2.1 There were apologies for absence from Councillor Sharon Patrick.

3.1 There were no declarations of interest.

4.1 The Committee agreed the minutes of the previous Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 16 February 2017.

5.1 The attendees noted the procedure.

The decision

The 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, namely:

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• Public safety;
• Prevention of public nuisance; and
• The protection of children from harm,

the application has been approved in accordance with the Council’s licensing statement and the conditions set out in paragraph 8.1, subject to the following additional condition:

·  There shall be a maximum of five patrons smoking outside of the premises at any one time.  Those patrons shall smoke outside of the front of the premises.

And the following amendment to condition 16:

·  The last sentence of condition 16 shall be replaced with the following

“Alcohol shall not be sold, supplied or consumed otherwise than to persons who are seated at a table and taking a substantial meal from the menu and that the consumption of alcohol by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals. The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter/waitress service only.”

Reasons for the decision

The application has been approved, with the above amendments, as the Licensing Sub-Committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined. 

6.1 Mike Smith, Principal Licensing Officer, outlined to the Licensing Sub-Committee the application for a Premises Licence for the Dialogue, 130 Upper Clapton Road, Hackney E5 9JY. The application was for late night refreshment and for the supply of alcohol (on premises).  There were no representations received from responsible authorities.  The planning authority had written that the authorised use of the premises was A1 for a shop.  The applicant was advised of the need to apply for planning permission to change the use of the premises. One written objection had been submitted against the application.

6.2 The Chair reminded the applicant that they must make clear that alcohol should only be consumed on the premises by persons who are seated at a table and eating a meal from the menu. The supply of alcohol would be by waiter/waitress service only.  Those present noted the written submission from a local resident objecting to the application. They raised a number of concerns including the proximity of the premises to a residential area and the possibility of crime in the area due to the intoxication of people. The objector cited the alleyway as one particular problem area as it formed access to all of the businesses as well as the residential area. Concerns were also expressed about rubbish being left outside. The objector also highlighted that there were already more than three places to drink and eat in the area.

6.3 The Chair asked the applicant about the alleyway.  The applicant replied that they were not aware of any crime occurring in this area.

6.4 Committee members noted that there was one toilet on the ground floor, at the rear of the premises. The fire exit, at the rear, was kept shut.

6.5 Councillor Plouviez enquired about where customers could smoke at the premises, and how many should be allowed outside at the same time without causing a nuisance.  The applicant agreed to an additional condition of a maximum of five smokers outside of the premises, all of whom should be at the front of the premises, at any one time. 

6.6 The committee noted that any rubbish, when stored inside, would be placed in a store room, next to the toilet, at the rear on the ground floor.

6.7 The Chair reminded the applicant that they would need to find out what the time bands for collection of waste are for the area and only put waste out during those bands. The applicant agreed to do this and they also confirmed that they were currently going through the planning application process.

6.8 The applicant confirmed that they had no connection to the previous owner.  They added that the maximum capacity for the premises would be 45 patrons (including baby chairs).

The item was deferred at the request of the applicant and withdrawn from the meeting agenda.

The item was deferred at the request of the applicant and withdrawn from the meeting agenda.

The decision

The 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, namely:

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• Public safety;
• Prevention of public nuisance; and
• The protection of children from harm,

the application has been approved in accordance with the Council’s licensing statement and the conditions set out in paragraph 8.1, subject to the following amendments:

·  The stores area in the basement of the premises shall not be part of the licensable activities.

And the following additional condition:

·  The ground floor shall have a maximum capacity of 12 persons.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-committee considered carefully the representations made by other persons regarding the impact the proposed operation would have on existing disorder and noise problems within the area of the premises due to the high concentration of licensed premises.

The Sub-committee noted that the Police had withdrawn its representation and the applicant’s responses regarding the proposed operation’s impact on existing disorder and crime in the area.

The Licensing Sub-committee believed that the premises’ small capacity, the licence conditions preventing “vertical drinking”, the absence of a licence for regulated entertainment after 23:00, and conditions proposed by the Police (and accepted by the applicant) to ensure that the premises would not add to the existing disorder and noise within the area constituted exceptional circumstances within the meaning of LP13 of the Council’s licensing policy. 

On balance, the Licensing Sub-committee was satisfied that granting the premises licence subject to conditions and the above amendments would not undermine the licensing objectives.

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.

8.1 Mike Smith, Principal Licensing Officer, outlined to the Licensing Sub-Committee the application for a Premises Licence for Black Opium coffee shop at 362-364 Old Street, EC1V 9LT. The application was for the supply of alcohol (on sales). The Environmental Health Authority had withdrawn its representation after conditions had been agreed.  The Planning Authority had submitted an informative and the police had withdrawn their representation after conditions had been agreed. The committee noted that no representation had been received from the licensing authority and that there had been written submissions from three local residents objecting to the application. 

8.2 Mark Worthington, representing the applicant, made a submission to the Licensing Sub-Committee in support of the application.  The application was for a basement jazz bar for the provision of live music, taking place during deregulated hours (which is why the licence application contained no reference to regulated entertainment).  The applicant was aware of the Council’s licensing policies LP13 and LP15 the potential for a licence granted in response to the present application to exacerbate the problems of the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the Shoreditch area. Mr Worthington told the Sub-Committee that the nature of the premises means that this application should be regarded as presenting exceptional circumstances within the meaning of LP13.  Currently, Black Opium coffee was a library supported by a coffee shop. The Applicant is looking to expand the business into the basement and provide live jazz music in the evenings. The total capacity for the premises was 57 people. Mr Worthington explained that the premises would not become a high volume vertical drinking establishment because of the size of the premises and the condition requiring alcoholic drinks only to be served to patrons who are seated. Mr Worthington added that it was not that kind of application, citing the lack of objections from the licensed authorities as evidence of this. Mr Worthington believed that with a robust series of proposed conditions the premises would not add to the cumulative impact on the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (SPA).

8.3 The attendees noted that no representation from the licensing authority had been received because, due to unforeseen circumstances, this application had been overlooked by the authority. 

8.4 The Chair asked whether the stores area on the basement floor plan would be licensable. The applicant confirmed that it was not.  Committee members noted, that though they were not shown on the premises’ plans, tables were included (as required by condition 9).

8.5 The Chair raised with the applicant the informative provided by the planning authority (appendix b). It was highlighted that the current proposed hours in the licensing application were not in accordance with the planning permission.  Mr Worthington replied that the Applicant intended to go through the planning process shortly.

8.6 The Committee noted that there was no application for music as it would not be played after 11pm and therefore was not licensable.

8.7 The attendees discussed the objections to the application raised by the three local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The decision

The 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, namely:

• The prevention of crime and disorder;
• Public safety;
• Prevention of public nuisance; and
• The protection of children from harm,

the application has been approved in accordance with the Council’s licensing statement and the conditions set out in paragraph 8.1, subject to the following additional conditions:

·  The basement area at the premises shall not be used for licensable activities.

·  The ground floor at the premises shall have a maximum capacity of 35 persons.

·  There shall be no sale of alcohol unless the alcohol is mixed with coffee or is a sale of a coffee liqueur.

Reasons for the decision

The application has been approved, with the above amendments, as the Licensing Sub-Committee was, on balance, satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined.

 The Licensing Sub-committee considered carefully the representations made by other persons regarding the impact the proposed operation would have on existing disorder and noise problems within the area of the premises due to the high concentration of licensed premises.

The Sub-committee noted that the Police had withdrawn its representation and the applicant’s responses regarding the proposed operation’s impact on existing disorder and crime in the area.

The Licensing Sub-committee believed that the premises’ small capacity, alcohol only being sold if mixed with coffee or as coffee liqueur and early terminal hour of the premises meant that granting a licence would not add to existing disorder and noise within the area. 

9.1 Mike Smith, Principal Licensing Officer, outlined to the Licensing Sub-Committee the application for a Premises Licence for 194 Shoreditch High Street, Hackney London E1 8LG. The application was for the supply of alcohol (on and off sales). No representations had been received from responsible authorities. The police had withdrawn their representation following acceptance of conditions they had proposed.  The Sub-Committee noted that a number of written representations objecting to the application had been submitted.

9.2 The applicant, Mr Gianni Romagno, made a submission to the Licensing Sub-Committee in support of his application. Mr Romagno explained that the premises were being completely refurbished and would be used as a coffee shop.  The basement would be used for storage and would include a bathroom. The ground floor would have a counter that would be used to serve coffee and various cafeteria products. Customers would be able to drink their beverages inside, sitting on stools, or take their drinks away. The premises would also display retail products such as bags of coffee beans, coffee cups and mugs and coffee liqueurs.  The company behind the business, Sevengrams UK Limited, focused not only on selling a complete and exclusive range of products for coffee lovers but also to provide a high-quality certified educational programme to professional baristas and restaurant owners. The shop would host training courses run by visiting top international baristas. These baristas would often use ingredients that included small amounts of alcohol, particularly coffee liqueurs. Mr Romagno was keen not to restrict these baristas when they were giving demonstrations.  Mr Romagno explained that the premises would not involve late night drinking, citing the 9.30pm and 10pm closing times.

9.3 In response to a query from the Chair, Mr Romagno replied that capacity for the premises was unlikely to exceed 50 people.  Mr Romagno added that there would only be tables out the front, to attract customers into the shop. The Sub-Committee noted that the off sales of alcohol would only involve coffee liqueurs.

9.4 Councillor Lufkin raised concerns about the off sales of alcohol. His concerns specifically focused on what might happen if the business was to close. If the Sub-Committee approved the licence for the off sale of alcohol there would be nothing to prevent any future business from using the premises as an off licence for example. This in turn could have a cumulative impact on the area. 

9.5 The Sub-Committee discussed written submissions from residents objecting to the application. Members noted concerns about the shop being so close to the Shoreditch special licensing policy area (or “SPA”) and also some busy bars and clubs. Some residents commented that the small size of the shop made it unsuitable for licensable activities.

9.6 Following further discussion, Mr Romagno agreed to a maximum capacity of 35 for the premises.  

9.7 Councillor Lufkin re-iterated his earlier concerns about the off sales of alcohol.  Members agreed to an additional condition stating that there be no sale of alcohol unless the alcohol was mixed with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Approved under delegated authority. The item was withdrawn from the meeting.

Approved under delegated authority. The item was withdrawn from the meeting.

There were no Temporary Event Notices raised at the meeting