Agenda and minutes

Licensing Sub-Committee
Tuesday 22 February 2011 7.00 pm

Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. View directions

Contact: Gary O'Key, Tel: 020 7926 2183 Email: gokey@lambeth.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chair

Minutes:

MOVED by Councillor Jack Hopkins and SECONDED by Councillor Diana Braithwaite:

 

RESOLVED: That Councillor Leanne Target-Parker be elected as Chair of the meeting.

 

 

2.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were none.

 

 

3.

Minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the hearing held on 10 February 2011 as a correct record of proceedings.

 

Minutes to follow.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2011 were deferred to the next meeting.

 

 

4.

Licensing Applications for the Grant / Review of a Premises Licence pdf icon PDF 75 KB

(Report 255/10-11 and appendices)

 

Executive Director of Housing, Regeneration and Environment.

Contact: John Smith, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 6140

Email: Jsmith5@lambeth.gov.uk

 

 

4a

Unit 2, 2nd Avenue, Brixton Village, SW9 8PR (Coldharbour Ward) pdf icon PDF 52 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Presentation by the Head of Environmental Health

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a new premises licence.  The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance – and to Sections 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as ones particularly relevant to this application.  The options available to the Sub Committee were set out in paragraph 5.9 of the report on page 4.

 

He referred to the fact that the original application had been amended and was now for the following:

 

Supply of Alcohol (for consumption on the premises only)

            Monday - Sunday                                          11:00  - 00:00

 

Late Night Refreshment

            Monday - Sunday                                          23:00  - 00:00

 

As a result of the amendment one of the representations had been withdrawn.

 

Maps and photographs of the premises were circulated.

 

Presentation by the Applicant

 

TanapolSrinimitra, applicant, accompanied by Bobby Holder, informed the Sub Committee that:

  • They had amended the application to meet the objections made by the Interested Parties.
  • The café had 40 seats inside and outside.
  • At present the market closed at 10.00 pm but as it was possible that in the future opening hours would be extended the solicitor had advised that the application be up to midnight so that a variation would not need to be sought when that happened.

 

In response to questions from members it was confirmed:

  • Planters would be installed in the area outside the café in the summer.
  • Alcohol would not be served in this area as it would be a smoking area where snacks may be consumed.
  • The premises were not accessible when the market was closed as it was private property and there were gates installed.
  • There was no intention to install speakers outside the premises.
  • Background music would be played but it was intended that it would be soft, so as to create an ambience so that people could have a conversation.
  • The ethos was that it would be a place where one could have a good meal with soft music in the background.
  • At present the market was open until 10.00 pm Mondays to Saturdays and from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm Sundays. It was envisaged that the area would comprise small businesses.
  • Granville Arcade had been rebranded as Brixton Village.

 

Officers confirmed that there had been a number of premises applications in the area.

 

Presentation by Interested Parties

 

No interested parties were present.

 

Adjournment and Decision

 

At 7.20 pm the Sub Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private.

 

The Sub-Committee had heard representations from the applicant and his representative and the written representation from the Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative.

 

Legal advice was given to the Sub Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate.  The Sub-Committee decided to grant the licence for the following reasons:

4b

Clapham Common Event Site, London SW4 (Clapham Town Ward) pdf icon PDF 51 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Presentation by the Head of Environmental Health

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a new premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance – and to Sections 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub Committee were set out in paragraph 5.9 of the report on page 4.

 

He explained that the application was for an event on Clapham Common for 11 and 12 June 2011. The conditions proposed were identical to those granted by the Sub-Committee on 21 December 2010 for the event to be held at the site on 27 and 28 August 2011, although it would be a smaller area. Hours requested were from 12 noon till 9.00 pm with alcohol ceasing to be served 30 minutes before.

 

1 representation had been received from 16 residents. In addition 24 people had written in support of the event. The results of a survey of 70 local traders were tabled, all of which were positive about past events.

 

Maps and photographs of the site were circulated.

 

Presentation by the Applicant

 

Andrew Mattle, applicant, along with his representative Gareth Hughes and acoustic consultant Dani Fiumicelli, informed the Sub-Committee that:

  • The application replicated the conditions granted for the event on 27 and 28 August 2011, although the capacity would be 10,000 people as compared to 20,000 for the August event.
  • There were 3 big events each year on Clapham Common in June, July and August. This event was a replacement for the ‘Toast’ Event which had been scheduled to be held on the same weekend in June.
  • The event was not a folk festival – for example the headline band on the second day was Razorlight.
  • They were a trusted operator who had run the SW4 event in August for the past few years.
  • The following had not objected to the application - The Metropolitan Police; Environmental Health; Friends of Clapham Common and the Clapham Society.
  • Compared to the August event there were more hours of daylight and a 9.00 pm finish would mean that it would still be light.
  • The Interested Parties had made representations regarding noise levels. Each year for the August event Mr. Fiumicelli liaised with the Council’s Noise section over the sound levels, the criteria for which had been set 3 years previously. There had been a small number of people objecting and there was significant support for the event. They did not anticipate any major issues if the same noise levels were applied as for the August event.
  • The Punch Bowl case, referred to in the representations from the Interested Parties, was a different issue from this event and concerned a public house and the noise levels emanating from smokers outside the premises.
  • A lot of the evidence presented was old, and there had been subsequent events where there had been no issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b