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 PhilipNormal, SECONDED by Councillor Irfan Mohammed and
That Councillor Fred Cowell be elected 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.
Councillor Irfan Mohammed stated that the premises in application was located in his ward, Ferndale Ward.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 13 August 2019 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 August 2019 be approved and signed by the Chair as correct records of the proceedings.
Strategic Director, Residents Services
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 new premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 15 of the Statutory Guidance, and to sections 5, 6 and 14 and Appendices 1-7, 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 paragraphs 6.2 of the report on pages 28 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application for a new premises licence.
· The application was for the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment.
· The newly proposed operating hours for licensable activity were Sunday - Wednesday 10:00 to 23:00 and Thursday to Saturday 10:00 to 00:00.
· The premises would close half an hour after licensable activity was completed.
· Representations had been received from the Licensing team and 14 residents.
· Two residents were in attendance to address the Sub-Committee regarding the application.
· Supporting documents could be found on pages 29-50 of the agenda papers.
· Plans could be found on page 51 of the agenda papers.
· Representations could be found on pages 53-78 of the agenda papers.
· The original proposed conditions could be found on pages 79– 82 of the agenda papers.
· Further additional documents could be found in the additional agenda papers. These documents had been sent all parties.
· One resident had withdrawn their representation.
Presentation by the applicant
Mr Jack Spiegler and Ms Melanie Brown informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The premises was to be used as an all-day bistro and wine merchant.
· The applicant was grateful for the contributions and assistance made by the Licensing team.
· The proposed conditions could be found on pages 1 - 5 of the additional agenda papers.
· Most of the conditions had been agreed.
· The Licensing team had disputed the terminal hour which had been reduced.
· The premises was located in Brixton town centre according to page 52 of the agenda papers. However, because the premises was in close proximity of residential areas, the Licensing team felt that the premises should be considered as being located in a residential area.
· The applicant felt that the premises could not be located in a town centre and a residential area at the same time.
· Following the reduction of the proposed operating hours, the hours of licensable activity fell within the hours in accordance with policy hours for a town centre.
· The applicant had proposed various safeguards and the operational management of the premises had spoken to the residents in objection who were present at the meeting. The operating hours for Friday and Saturday had been agreed with the residents.
· The operating hours for Sunday to Wednesday had also been agreed.
· It was up to the Sub-Committee to decide the operating hours for Thursday.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Spiegler and Ms Brown informed the Sub-Committee that:
· As per page 1 of the additional agenda papers, they were seeking the licensable ... 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 review of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance, and to sections 1 and 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 paragraphs 6.1 of the report on page 89 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was a review for a premises licence.
· The review had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police after three alleged assaults had taken place at the premises.
· The application received five representations in support of the review. This included the Licensing team, Public Protection, Public Health and two residents.
· CCTV footage had been taken from the premises had been provided.
· Additional information had been circulated following the publication of the report.
Presentation by the applicant
The applicant’s representative, Mr James Rankin, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The application for review was submitted on 30 July 2019, following a series of issues that had occurred at the premises in June 2019.
· Having examined the Police reports, the issues at the premises appeared to be less serious than originally thought.
· Since the review application had been submitted, no issues of note had taken place at the premises.
· The review had had also had an effect on the other licensed premises in the area as licence holders became more conscious of potentially losing their licence.
· The premises licence holder had been cooperating with the Police and had been helpful and compliant.
· The premises licence holder had introduced protocols including removing from duty three members of SIA door staff who were causing Police and Licensing concern.
· Other processes had been introduced by the premises licence holder and the applicant felt that matters could be revisited.
· This was the first time that the premises had come to the attention of the Police.
· All parties considered potential conditions together and the documents that had been circulated was the product of a number of meetings and collaborative suggestions.
· All parties, in general, had agreed all conditions.
· The Police were not simply conceding to an agreement and wanted to make it clear that if the proposed conditions were not complied with then the Police would not hesitate to submit an application to revoke the licence.
· The applicant had spoken to the Public Health team who had agreed to the proposed arrangements.
Presentation by interested parties
The Licensing Manager, Ms Bina Patel stated that she was in agreement with the proposed conditions but that the proposed condition for the retention of CCTV footage should be 31 days (not 30 days).
The premises licence holder agreed with the proposal.
Public Health Consultant, Ms Rachael Scantlebury, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· She had no objections to the proposed conditions.
Presentation by the premises licence holder
In response to questions from Members, the representative for the applicant, Mr Jeremy ... view the full minutes text for item 4b
At the start of the proceedings, the Legal Officer informed the Sub-Committee that information had been published on the Council’s website and was served to the relevant licence holder at the time the information had been published. However, it had not been published on the website when he had viewed it nor had it been available when Mr Dadds had viewed it. However, as the Licensing Officer had confirmed that it had been sent to the person named as licence holder at the time, it had been properly served.
Mr Dadds, representative for Mr Ghaffoor, stated that he had previously raised an objection to the additional papers because he had not had time to inspect them. However, he no longer objected to the circulation of the additional papers.
He had made an application yesterday for a transfer of the premises licence to Mr Ghaffoor. He understood that the application included Mr Ghaffoor’s passport, however the Licensing team had informed that they had not received proof of residency. He needed to seek assurances that the application for the transfer of the premises licence had been accepted so that confirmation could be obtained on his position to be able to address the Sub-Committee as the representative of the premises licence holder.
The Legal Officer stated that if an application was made electronically, then under the Licensing Act (2003), the application needed to contain appropriate right to work documents. The Licensing team stated that they had not received the relevant documents. Even if the documents were to be provided during this meeting, they would not have been submitted within business hours and therefore the application would be considered as having been received the next day. Therefore, a valid application for a transfer of a premises licence could not be considered as having been received. The Sub-Committee could either proceed as originally proposed and could ask questions of any person that and they felt could appropriately address the Sub-Committee regarding application or adjourn the application. However, in any case, Mr Dadds could not be given a free-standing right to address the Sub-Committee, but simply answer questions asked by the Sub-Committee. Further, it might also be said that the application to transfer could have been made more promptly.
At this point in the proceedings, the Police and the Licensing Manager informed that they were seeking a revocation of the premises licence.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Dadds, representative for Mr Ghaffoor, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· He was contacted by Mr Ghaffour on 20 September 2019, he then spoke to the Council and completed relevant consent forms.
· The application to transfer the premises licence was made after all the appropriate documents had been processed. A valid application to transfer the premises licence had been made yesterday.
· A valid application for the transfer the premises licence had been completed.
· He wrote to the Council but was told that no valid application had been received. His assistant had submitted the application ... view the full minutes text for item 4c