Back to top arrow icon Back to top

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Until further notice, all Council meetings will be held remotely

Contact: Natalie Williams, Governance Services Officer  Tel: 020 8356 8407 Email:  natalie.williams@hackney.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chair

Minutes:

Cllr James Peters was elected as Chair.

2.

Declarations of Interest - Members to declare as appropriate

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interests.

3.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

4.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Minutes:

There were no minutes for consideration.

5.

Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing Procedure pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair explained the hearing procedure to all present.

6.

Licensing Sub-Committee Hearings General Information pdf icon PDF 112 KB

7.

Application for a Personal Licence: pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 6 due to the disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraph 1, Part 1 , Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee had regard to the section 182 Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and considered the convictions to be sufficiently serious and relevant for the application to be rejected.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the Statutory Guidance states that a conviction for a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent and that it is outside the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the application following the completion of the applicant’s prison sentence, and noted that the applicant had not been in trouble with the Police since he was released.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had taken steps to rebuild and improve his life to enhance himself since he was released from prison. The applicant explained that he has a TFL taxi licence which is due to be renewed shortly.

 

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the representations made by the Police that the applicant has unspent relevant convictions and confirmed that a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent. The Police also maintained their objection to this application, which was that to grant a personal licence to the applicant, given the circumstances and nature of the offences, would not promote the crime and disorder objective.

 

The Police explained that not having a personal licence does not stop the applicant having a management position and working their way up in the hospitality industry.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that in this case the applicant served a custodial sentence of over 4 years which can never be spent. The Police considered that the applicant was not a suitable person to hold a personal licence.

 

The Sub-Committee noted, when making their decision, that no suitable mitigating circumstances could be provided to assist the sub-committee in demonstrating that the prevention of crime and disorder objective would not be undermined.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 6 due to the disclosure of exempt information as defined under paragraph 1, Part 1 , Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Principal Licensing officer introduced the report in respect of a personal licence application which had received objections from the police.

 

The Sub Committee heard from the Metropolitan Police representative who stated that the applicant had previously been in prison for seven years for serious offences. Referring to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Sub-Committee was informed that when a person is convicted of an offence which results in a custodial sentence of more than four years, this was never spent.  It was confirmed that the applicant had not contacted the police following their representation.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s representative.  It was explained that the applicant had not been involved in any unlawful activity since his conviction in 2006.

 

The Sub-Committee discussed the application and it was clarified that the Sub-Committee was unable to exercise any discretion and had no other option than to refuse the application, due to the unspent relevant conviction.

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed that the applicant had been referred to the on-line guidance.

 

In concluding, It was explained that a personal licence could not be issued, due to the stipulation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The applicant was informed that this would not prohibit him from working within licensed establishments in a managerial capacity; however he would not be able to work as a Designated Premises Supervisor.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to them within the report and at the hearing today have determined that having regard to the promotion of the licensing objective concerned with:

? the prevention of crime and disorder objective,

the application for a personal licence has been refused, having particular regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy LP9.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee had regard to the section 182 Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and considered the convictions to be sufficiently serious and relevant for the application to be rejected.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the Statutory Guidance states that a conviction for a prison sentence of over 4 years can never become spent and that it is outside the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Sub-Committee considered the application following the completion of the applicant’s prison sentence, and noted that the applicant had not been in trouble with the Police since he was released.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had taken steps to rebuild and improve his life to enhance himself since he was released from prison. The applicant explained that he has a TFL taxi licence which is due to be renewed shortly.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the representations made by the Police that the applicant has unspent relevant convictions and confirmed that a prison sentence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Application for a Review of Premises Licence: Off Broadway, 63-65 Broadway Market E8 4PH pdf icon PDF 13 MB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: The Licensing Sub-committee, in considering this decision from the information presented to them within the report and at the hearing today and having regard to the promotion of the licensing objectives:

 

the prevention of crime and disorder;

public safety;

prevention of public nuisance; and

the protection of children from harm,

 

that the premises licence for Off Broadway, 63-65 Broadway Market be revoked.

The Reasons for the Decision:

The Licensing Sub-committee carefully considered the application for a review of the premises licence from the Licensing Authority supported by the Metropolitan Police Service (“the police”), and 93 Other Persons (local residents). They also carefully considered the representations from the licence holder’s representative and the licence holder, and the supporting evidence presented by them. The Sub-committee decided that revocation of the premises licence was an appropriate and necessary course of action, given the repeated failures to comply with the terms and conditions of the premises licence.

The Sub-committee also considered the other options available to them, as detailed in the report. They were satisfied that none of these would adequately address the likelihood of public nuisance reoccurring. They felt that revocation of the licence was necessary to prevent the licensing objectives being undermined in the future.

The Sub-committee considered the evidence that led to the review being called by the Licensing Authority. They took into consideration the following specific evidence:

 

The Sub-committee had no confidence that the licence holder would make the necessary changes to improve the operation of the premises so that it would not have a negative impact on the local residents that live near to the premises.

 

The local residents made representations to the effect that, if the Sub-committee was not minded to revoke the licence, it should prohibit off-sales, outside drinking and vertical drinking, all of which led to complaints about noise nuisance, albeit residents were not satisfied that such additional conditions would either address their concerns or be complied with. The Sub-committee heard from local residents that over 25 complaints of noise nuisance and other complaints about the premises had been made to the Licensing Authority. It was noted that a large number of the local residents had lived in the area for 40 years and continue to have disturbed sleep late at night due to the noise coming from the premises. The Chair of  the  Sub-committee expressed disappointment that the licensee failed to engage with the local residents to try and resolve the issues prior to the hearing.

 

The Sub-committee heard evidence from local residents that alcohol has been sold outside permitted hours under Planning Permission.

 

The licence holder was not in agreement with the original, proposed conditions discussed with the police and the Licensing Authority.

 

The Sub-committee were disappointed that the licence holder did not take the opportunity presented by the meeting’s adjournment to negotiate or mediate with local residents to overcome and address their concerns about the premises.  This was the purpose of the adjournment. It was clear to the Sub-committee that the licence  ...  view the full decision text for item 8.

Minutes:

 

It was noted by all present that the same panel had considered the application at a meeting on 25 January 2022. The Sub-Committee requested that the licensee, Licensing Authority, Metropolitan Police  and local residents engage in mediation to agree on conditions of the licence.

 

All present noted the supplementary information that had been circulated prior to the hearing.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the report of the Licensing Service as circulated in the agenda pack.

 

It was clarified that the circulated conditions had been agreed with the licensee but had not been agreed in their entirety by the police. Since the last hearing, the licensee had not made any attempts to contact local residents to agree conditions or a way forward.

 

The Licensing Authority made submissions and raised concerns relating to the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The Sub-Committee was informed that there was no record of an application for DPS from Mr Selby and a notice of resignation had not been received from the previous DPS.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that there was no appropriate planning permission in place for the lower part of the premises to operate outside of the hours of 1000-1600 and the wine bar area to operate beyond 2300. In 2011 temporary permission was granted for the premises to operate until 0000 however this ceased in March 2012.

 

The Licensing Authority raised concerns relating to the licensees' ability to comply with licensing and planning regulations and it was suggested that if the Sub-Committee was mindful not to revoke the licence, the terminal hour should align with planning permission.

 

The Metropolitan Police-Hackney Licensing Unit made submissions. It was outlined that the circulated conditions had not been agreed in full. The following amendments to conditions were requested: the removal of vertical drinking outside of the premises, outside drinking to cease at 2200 and limited to 6-8 seated patrons, the removal of off-sales and a limit of four smokers outside the premises at any one time.

 

Mr Gareth Hughes, the licensee’s legal representative and Mr Selby, the licensee made submissions, The Sub-Committee was informed that the named Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) was Mr Byron Knight. An application had been made on Mr Selby’s behalf in February 2021 which had not been received by the Council. A new application has since been submitted. Mr Selby confirmed that Mr Knight was no longer employed by him and had not been since December 2020.

 

The licensee’s legal representative confirmed that the licensee had unbeknowingly operating under the temporary planning permission granted in 2011 for the past 10 years and noted that the Planning Authority had not submitted a representation or commenced any enforcement action.

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed a DPS application from Mr Selby was received  on 17 March 2022. The Licensing Service had subsequently been in communication with him advising that the application was invalid due to not having received a consent form. Mr Selby had also been advised to produce proof of payment for his previous application.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the written  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Additional Information for Off Broadway Submitted by Other Persons pdf icon PDF 549 KB

Additional documents:

10.

Temporary Event Notices - Standing Item

Minutes:

There were no Temporary Event Notices for consideration.