Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the filming of meetings and this information was noted.  

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies had been received.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).

There was no urgent business.  

There were no declarations of interest.  

The Sub-Committee will first hear from the Licensing Officer.  After that, the applicant will present their application and the Sub-Committee and objectors will have the opportunity to ask questions. Then, the objectors will present their case and the Sub-Committee and objectors will have the opportunity to ask questions. 

All parties will then have the opportunity to sum up, and then the meeting will conclude to allow the Sub-Committee to deliberate and reach a decision. This decision will then be provided in writing within five working days of this meeting.

The Chair provided a summary of the procedure for the meeting.  

To consider an application for a new premises licence.

Upon opening the meeting, Ms Daliah Barrett, the Licensing Team Leader, stated that some additional late papers had been received from the applicant.

In response to questions, Mr Bryan Barnes, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      He objected to additional documents being circulated as the hearing of the application had already been subject to delay.

In response to questions, Mr Shiekh Subrattee, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      He objected to additional documents being circulated as the applicant already had time to submit documents and the applicant should not be given an advantage.

In response to questions, Mr Robert Sutherland, the applicant’s representative, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      As a matter of law, the documents were not late under the procedure of the Licencing Act and the regulations, but he accepted that they may not have been in accordance with the Council's timetable in relation to the Licencing Act.

·      Whilst he would say the documents and the video should be considered, the documents from the acoustic consultants were following on from a series of emails with the Noise and Nuisance team. A number of questions were raised by the head of the department causing a delay. That resulted in an additional document from the acoustic consultants which had to address particular questions. In addition, there was a dispersal plan that indicated how the premises would operate in relation to dispersal should the licence be granted. There was also a further update to the noise management plan. A copy of the noise management plan was contained within the original report. There were some minor changes to it. In respect of the video evidence, it would not be a surprise to the Sub-Committee that the basis of the complaints was not accepted by the by the applicant and the evidence of the CCTV was to demonstrate that the number of people inside of the premises was very small. On one occasion, it was only two and on another occasion, it was maybe four or five. Generally, the number of patrons inside of the venue at the times the complaints were made were very small. The final document was in relation to a statement from the DPS who was able to give direct evidence herself. It would assist if the Sub-Committee could see it, but the evidence could be provided orally. If the Sub-Committee was minded to adjourn the hearing to another date, then he would invite the Sub-Committee to continue with the hearing without the additional information.

At 7:29pm, the Sub-Committee decided to adjourn to deliberate. The Sub-Committee reconvened at 7:39pm.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee returned to the meeting and the Chair stated that the Sub-Committee had deliberated on the matter of the documents that were submitted late and considered that the Licencing Act allowed Councils to set their own policies in relation to licencing and the documents were not submitted in accordance with Haringey Council's procedural rules. The Sub-Committee wished to have the time to consider the documents so it could make a decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider an application for a new premises licence.   

Presentation by the Licensing Officer

Ms Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      This was an application for a new premises licence.

·      The application sought sale of alcohol Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 23:00 With alcohol for off sales only at the premises.  

·      The application submitted had put forward various conditions that are put forward. There were conditions for CCTV, refusal logs, age verification conditions, a Challenge 25 scheme and there was also a section on how alcohol delivery would be managed.

Presentation by the applicant

The applicant’s representative Mr Nick Semper and Mr Mo Rahman, the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

·      The applicant had applied for a licence through his company. He was an experienced and successful food retailer and was seeking authorisation to enhance the offering to his existing customer base with the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises.

·      Sales would be during normal hours of operation for a business of a convenience store serving the local community with a provision of wide range of groceries and other home produce for purchase in the store and available by delivery.

·      The safeguards proposed within the operating schedule were intended to ensure that licencing objectives were robustly promoted.

·      Standing against the application was solely the Police who observed that the off licence would be supplying alcohol from 07:00 and were located on a high street with several primary schools nearby - with one secondary school. They felt that the mornings would be subject to  numerous school children passing by on West Green Road. The Police also thought that the children on the way to school would routinely see customers purchasing alcohol and standing outside the premises or in the nearby vicinity. They also believed that as a that a licenced premises, selling alcohol from 07:00 undermined the Clear, Hold, Build initiative in Tottenham which targeted individuals causing crime and anti-social behaviour, thus having an adverse impact on the local community. In order to dissuade the risk of harm to children, Police suggested that while the premises may open at 07:00, the supply of alcohol should start at 09:00.

·      The applicant had agreed the Police amendment to the conditions regarding CCTV immediately and to counter their worries, the applicant offered conditions on a ‘without prejudice’ basis that the licence holder would join and participate in any active responsible retailing scheme operating in the local area and that no lager, beer or cider exceeding 6.5% abv would be stocked or sold with exception of craft beers and artisan products, no matter the time of day.

·      The Police had objected to the two additional proposed conditions as they concluded that the sale of alcohol at 07:00 would risk causing early morning street drinking and this would be seen by school children passing by. Consequently, the applicant withdrew the offer.

·      The applicant had not asked for special treatment, the applicant asked to be treated the same as other operators and not be disadvantaged with regard to every other operator in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider any items of urgent business as identified at item 3.