Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1.  Cllr Gilbert Smyth was duly elected as the Sub-Committee Chair.

1.1.  Cllr Gilbert Smyth was duly elected as the Sub-Committee Chair.

2.1  There were no apologies for absence.

3.1.  None.

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on 2 August 2022 and 7 September 2023 were approved as an accurate record of the meeting proceedings.

4.1  The Sub-Committee approved the minutes of the following previous

  meetings:

·  2 August 2022; and

·  7 September 2023

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on 2 August 2022 and 7 September 2023, be approved as an accurate record of the meetings’ proceedings.

5.1  The meeting participants noted the hearing procedure for the meeting.

The decision of  21 September 2023

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; and

? The protection of children from harm,

the application for a premises licence has been approved in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the proposed conditions set out in paragraph 8.1 of the report as applied for.

Reasons for the decision

The application for a premises licence has been approved because the Licensing Sub-committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined.

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the Responsible Authorities (Environmental Protection, the Metropolitan Police Service (“the Police”) and the Licensing Authority all ?agreed conditions with the Applicant in advance of the hearing, and withdrew their objections.

The Sub-committee took into consideration that there was one objection from a local resident on the grounds of the four licensing objectives in particular crime and disorder and public nuisance. The Sub-committee noted that the local resident felt that if the premises opened late at night that it would add to the crime and disorder and public nuisance in the area in addition to the impact on local residents.

The Sub-committee heard the Applicant’s agent make representations that the premises will sell beers and they will not sell high-strength beers. The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant is a person of good character, they have other premises in the borough, and the Applicant is an experienced operator.

The Sub-committee took into account the reduced hours offered by the Applicant to core hours, closing at 23:00 hours, which is a reasonable time. The Sub-committee heard no other premises in the area were closed later. The Sub-committee noted that the Sainsbury’s supermarket on the same road has similar hours. The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant will keep the front of the premises clean and clear, and they will not encourage loitering outside the premises. The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant would be happy to sort out any concerns raised by members of the public. The Sub-committee noted that the premises are selling high-end products, and the Applicant has space at the back of the premises to accommodate fridges.

The Sub-committee heard that there are no residential premises above the shop premises. There are offices above the premises, and the Applicant will ensure that customers leave the area quietly. The Sub-committee noted that by the Other Person (a local resident) not attending the hearing, this prevented the Applicant from asking questions about their representation that was submitted, and they were not able to resolve any issues.

The Sub-committee heard representations from the Applicant’s agent that the premises is not a destination point, and there needs to be prominent signage so that people are aware to leave quietly.

The Sub-committee noted that the Applicant had not considered any green policies,  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.

6.1  The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from Hackney Council’s Acting Principal Licensing Officer and the Applicant’s Agent.  There were no representations from Responsible Authorities. The Other Person, had not attended the hearing, had made representations received on the grounds of the four licensing objectives in particular crime and disorder and public nuisance.

6.2  During the course of the meeting there was a discussion where the following points were raised:

·  The agent for the Applicant noted the premises would sell international food and craft beers.

·  The Applicant was of good character.

·  Hours proposed were for core hours

·  The Applicant’s agent had written to the Other Person, through the Council, in order to allay concerns.

·  There were no residential properties above the premises.

·  The Applicant had agreed conditions to encourage people to leave quietly and had agreed a condition (17) to provide visible contact details if any issues arose.

·  The Applicant’s agent noted that sustainablility issues were not a licensing objective and the Chair indicated that sustainability and the green agenda whilst it was not a licensing objective had been encouraged by the Council.

There were no closing remarks from the agent for the Applicant.

The 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; and

? The protection of children from harm,

the application for a premises licence has been approved in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the proposed conditions set out in paragraph 8.1 of the report as applied for.

Reasons for the decision

The application for a premises licence has been approved because the Licensing Sub-committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined.

The Sub-committee took into consideration that the Responsible Authorities (Environmental Protection, the Metropolitan Police Service (“the Police”) and the Licensing Authority all ?agreed conditions with the Applicant in advance of the hearing, and withdrew their objections.

The Sub-committee took into consideration that there was one objection from a local resident on the grounds of the four licensing objectives in particular crime and disorder and public nuisance. The Sub-committee noted that the local resident felt that if the premises opened late at night that it would add to the crime and disorder and public nuisance in the area in addition to the impact on local residents.

The Sub-committee heard the Applicant’s agent make representations that the premises will sell beers and they will not sell high-strength beers. The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant is a person of good character, they have other premises in the borough, and the Applicant is an experienced operator.

The Sub-committee took into account the reduced hours offered by the Applicant to core hours, closing at 23:00 hours, which is a reasonable time. The Sub-committee heard no other premises in the area were closed later. The Sub-committee noted that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Applicant requested to adjourn the hearing.

The item was approved under delegated authority.