- Agenda frontsheet PDF 234 KB
- Agenda reports pack
- Additional Papers - Duke of Edinburgh PDF 3 MB
- Additional Papers 2: Duke of Edinburgh PDF 7 MB
- Addtional Papers 3: Duke of Edinburgh PDF 5 MB
- Additional Papers 4: Duke of Edinburgh PDF 930 KB
- Additional Papers 5: Duke of Edinburgh PDF 942 KB
- Printed minutes PDF 292 KB
Venue: Committee Room (B6) - Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London, SW2 1RW. View directions
Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Tel: 020 7926 0028 Email: email@example.com
Election of Chair
Moved by Councillor Rezina Chowdhury, SECONDED by Councillor John Kazantzis and
RESOVLED: That Councillor Martin Tiedemann 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.
None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2019 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 September 2019 be approved and signed by the Chair as correct records 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 variation of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 16 of the Statutory Guidance and Sections 5 (and polices 1, 3, 4, and 8) 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 132 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application to vary operating hours and modify existing conditions.
· Two representations have been received against the application. These could be found on Annex C on pages 47-51 of the agenda papers.
· The representations made were from Licensing authority and one resident.
· Since the publication of the reports, the applicant had submitted two Temporary Event Notices.
Presentation by the applicant
Ms Michelle Hayworth,representative for the applicant and the applicant, Mr Eduardo Dantas informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The applicant had been operating on the premises since 2010. He had operated there for nine years.
· In 2012, a resident living adjacent to the premises submitted a review application and the operating hours of the premises was subsequently reduced. The applicant was not seeking to reinstate the hours at which the premises previously operated, but was seeking an extension of the current operating hours.
· Since 2014, the applicant had submitted several temporary event notices (TEN) which generally operated until 03:00 or 04:00. The applicant was not seeking to instate these hours either.
· The applicant had originally sought a terminal hour of 02:00 Friday and Saturday.
· Since 2012, the applicant had worked at the premises to ensure that the licensing objectives would be upheld and additional wall had been installed at the premises to stop noise penetration.
· Acoustic tiles have also been put in place and the wall had been attenuated.
· The levels of technology in the premises had improved. A sound limiter had been installed and the applicant used a decibel reader to check the noise levels emanating from the premises from the outside area.
· The applicant had operated the premises whilst holding events such as Brazilian dancing and other musical events including on bank holidays.
· When the notices for the application were put up, the applicant was surprised to have only received one representation. There was also one registered complaint (from June 2019 about noise).
· The applicant appeared to be managing the premises very well.
· The applicant also served food during lunch and in the evenings.
· The premises also held Latin American themed entertainment including music and samba on a regular basis.
· If the premises had an issue with noise, then the events that were being held at the premises would generate a lot of public interest via complaints and representations from the Police and Public Protection (neither of who had submitted a representation for this application).
· The premises was well ‘landlocked’. It had a community centre behind it ... view the full minutes text for item 4a
Ms Isabella Buono, representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· She would like to seek an adjournment.
· The applicant hoped that after taking legal advice he would be able to resolve the concerns raised from all interested parties.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Buono informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The applicant’s solicitor was instructed a day before this meeting and she received instructions to act on behalf of the applicant this morning.
· The applicant had been advised of the hearing date one month previously.
· The applicant had hoped that he would be able to progress with his application without legal assistance but later realised that he needed legal help.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The application to adjourn and the reasons for doing so had been submitted with late notice but she was happy to agree an adjournment in the circumstances.
Adjournment and Decision
At 7:23pm 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.
Announcement of Decision
Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the application to adjourn.
The Sub-Committee stated that, after taking into consideration Regulation 12 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearing) Regulations 2005, it was content that adjourning the hearing was in the interest of all parties as this would ensure the Licensee had adequate representation when the application was determined. The application would be heard on 12 November 2019. This would give the licensees representative sufficient time to consider the application further.
The Sub-Committee sought clarification of the applicant’s representative regarding the basis of his presentation at the Sub-Committee.
The applicant’s representative, Mr Gary Grant, informed the Sub-Committee that he was conscious that members of the public had given up their time to be present at the meeting. There were approximately 906 pages of the agenda papers dedicated to the application. The principle issue for this application was whether or not there needed to be a maximum capacity limit imposed in respect of the beer garden at the premises and what that capacity should that be. The projected figures ranged from 100 to 902 people. The applicant suggested a compromise figure of 550. Mr Grant complained that the Licensing Manager had assessed the capacity limit of the beer garden purportedly in accordance with fire risk safety regulations and that, this was not properly considered a matter for her or the Sub-Committee. He explained that it was not for the Licensing team to determine what was a safe capacity for these premises in fire safety terms, as this was properly speaking a matter for the London Fire Brigade (LFB) using its statutory powers set out in place the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That provision dealt with the issue and provided for fire safety these assessments to be made by the relevant experts. The Licensing Manager was not an expert in the area of fire risk assessments and should rely on the assessments made by the LFB. The applicant wished to implement the capacity limit that their fire safety expert had assessed to be a safe number. Efforts had been made to liaise with the LFB but a definitive number could not be obtained from them. At 3:34pm yesterday, Mr Cordwall Thomas from the LFB had ventured a figure of a maximum of 100 persons but had provided no reasoning for how he had arrived at that number.No representative from the LFB was in attendance at this meeting indicating that they felt that fire safety issues were separate from licensing matters and would be dealt with separately. It was therefore reasonable that the Sub-Committee not consider representations (or parts of a representation) relating to fire safety with regard to the application and simply focus on issues more closely related to licensing matters. Although there remained areas of conflict remaining in terms of the licensing conditions Mr Grant felt these issues could be resolved quite quickly.
If the Sub-Committee took the view that commentary and consideration regarding fire safety needed to be considered, then the applicant would need to address the opinion expressed by the LFB at 3:34pm yesterday. Furthermore, a full day hearing would be required to address those issues. An issue such as this would take three days to be heard at the Magistrates Court.
The Sub-Committee noted that a representative from the LFB was not present at the meeting.
The Legal Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the Secretary of State’s guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing ... view the full minutes text for item 4c