Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 considered at item 7 below).

There were no items of Urgent Business.

Councillor Demirci declared a prejudicial interest with respect to Item 5: ‘Get In’ Mini Mart, 272-274 Langham Road, London N15 3NP and as such the item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The applicant was advised that this would be rescheduled for a future date and they would be advised of this once it had been agreed.

The Chair set out the Summary of Procedure as set out in the agenda pack.

To consider an application for the variation of a Premises Licence.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

To consider an application for a Premises Licence.

The Licensing Officer gave a summary of the report advising that the application was for a new premises license, for the address above, by Shu Hui Chiao, for the supply of alcohol at the premises. It was noted that representations had been made by Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Ms. Elsa Rand of 265A Archway Road, in objection to the application, on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had accepted the proposed conditions requested by Environmental Health and Trading Standards and therefore these would now form part of the conditions attached to the license.

Following the Licensing Officer’s summary of the report the Chair invited Ms Rand to outline her reasons for objecting to the application. She began by noting that she did not object to the noise associated with the running of the café during the daytime. However, the proposed extension of the opening hours, coupled with the increased noise likely to be generated by people consuming alcohol, was a cause of concern. A limited number of one off evening events had been held at the café in the past and Ms Rand advised that the noise had been clearly audible in her flat and this was her primary objection to the application. In addition patrons gathered outside the café to smoke and the fumes from this went into her flat. This also generated a lot of noise, which was audible from her flat.

Ms Rand read a letter from her neighbours who occupied the flat above whom also objected to the application on the grounds that Ms Rand outlined above.

The Committee put a number of questions to Ms Rand regarding her objections to the application. She confirmed that whilst she had lived there the café had not had a license to serve alcohol or to open as late as requested. Ms Rand advised that she had spoken to her landlord regarding the possibility of undertaking work to sound proof the flat and to replace the single glazed windows with double glazing; however, he indicated that was not a cost that he was willing to incur.

Mr Moy, speaking on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application. He responded to points made by Ms Rand regarding her concerns that there would be a significant increase in the level of noise omitted if the application were approved. Mr Moy noted that he did not agree that there would necessarily be a significant increase in the level of noise simply because alcohol was served. With regard to concerns that patrons smoking outside the premises and the noise and smoke this would create, Mr Moy advised that customers would be encouraged not to congregate outside the café.

Mr Moy underlined the need for his business to be competitive with other establishments in the area and noted that several customers had expressed their support for the application.

The Committee put a number of questions to Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

There were no items of urgent business.