Venue: Committee Room (B6) - Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London, SW2 1RW. View directions
Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Tel: 020 7926 0028 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Election of Chair
MOVED by Councillor Linda Bray, SECONDED by Councillor Rezina Chowdhury
RESOLVED: That Councillor Fred Cowell be appointed Chair for the meeting.
Declaration of Pecuniary Interests
Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.
None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 9 and 17 April 2018 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 and 17 April 2019 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
Strategic Director, Neighbourhoods and Growth
Contact: Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 4103
Presentation by the Licensing Officer
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a time limited licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 16 of the Statutory Guidance and Section 5 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.2 of the report on page 28 of the agenda papers
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was a time-limited application submitted on 21 February 2019.
· The original application sought a time-limited application over several years but was amended so that the licence sought would be for 2019 only.
· This application received 85 representations of which 80 were against the application and 5 were in support.
· Of the representations against the application, 75 were residents and non-residents.
· Mr Stevens, who had submitted a representation, had supplied videos and these videos had been shared with the applicant.
· Mr Stevens was not in attendance and Mr Toms would speak on his behalf.
In response to questions from Members, the Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The Police were consulted, but they did not make a representation and were not in attendance at the meeting.
Mr Dadds, representative for the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The application was similar each year.
· The Licensing team had submitted a representation and a response had been drafted back to them. He had a discussed the issue with the Licensing Manger and an agreement had been reached in relation to the conditions.
· The newly proposed conditions had been accepted and the remaining conditions which had not been agreed were no longer sought by the Licensing team.
· Event Lambeth had a policy which stated that the site was an appropriate place to hold a public event. There was no reason why the location could not be used.
· The Police had not made any representations against the application.
· The Police had been consulted and there had been extensive engagement with the Police and the applicant.
· There was a safety plan, a management plan and a commitment to make a contribution to increasing the Policing in the location.
· There were no objections from Trading Standards, Public Protectionand the number of matters raised by the Licensing team had been agreed upon.
· The hours sought by the applicant were within the framework despite the extension of hours sought from the previous event.Whilst there was an impact on local residents, this impact fell short of undermining the public nuisance and the licensing objectives. This was a balancing exercise which was performed every year.
· He could address any questions arising from residents regarding noise.
· A traffic management plan was in place.
· Regarding the use of the Common, there were some representations regarding issues and potential damage. The applicant had made an advanced down-payment to cover damages each year and last year this payment had been almost entirely returned.
· The applicant believed that the event had a ... view the full minutes text for item 4a
Presentation by the Licensing Officer
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a new premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance and Section 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Statement of Licensing Policy as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.2 of the report on page 438 of the agenda papers
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· The premises used to have a licence.
· The licence had lapsed due to the death of the previous licence holder.
· The application sought late night refreshment until 02:00 Sunday to Thursday and until 05:00 Friday-Saturday.
· Mr Leo Charalambides was present at the meeting representing the applicant.
· Objections to the application had been received from the Licensing team, the Police, Public Protection and one resident.
The meeting heard that additional papers had been circulated to all parties including the Sub-Committee.The representative for the applicant, Mr Charalambides, stated that he had not received the documents.
The Sub-Committee adjourned at 10:34pm to allow MrCharalambides and the applicant to consider the additional documents. The meeting reconvened at 10:39pm.
The Legal Officer stated that additional material was allowed to be submitted as part of the application prior to the hearing. It was understood that the particular documents had been circulated in an ordinary manner to all parties prior to the hearing. There was a general expectation for the applicant to be able to respond to the issues raised in the documents. If the applicant was not prepared to deal with the issues in a substantive way, then it was a matter for the Sub-Committee to decide if it was therefore appropriate to adjourn the hearing so that the application could be heard fairly.
Mr Charalambides stated that he noted the breaches made of the clear guidance and wished to continue with the hearing after having an appropriate amount of time to consider the documents. He did not give his consent in relation to the documents in question to be circulated to the Sub-Committee as additional documents part of the hearing for this meeting as it would only serve those objecting to the application.
Adjournment and Decision
At 10:43pm the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal adviser and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from all those who spoke.
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 application to adjourn.
RESOLVED: To grant the application to adjourn.
Announcement of Decision
Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the application to adjourn. Full written reasons would follow in due course.
The Sub-Committee heard all the evidence and thanked all parties. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the application to adjourn to ensure the process ... view the full minutes text for item 4b