Agenda and minutes

Venue: Assembly Hall - Lambeth Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Tel: 020 7926 0028 Email: nchoudhury@lambeth.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chair

2.

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.

 

 

Minutes:

None were declared.

3.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 227 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 3 October 2019 as a correct record of the proceedings.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 October 2019 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

 

4.

Licensing Applications for the Grant / Review of a Premises Licence pdf icon PDF 112 KB

 

Strategic Director, Sustainable Growth and Opportunity

Contact: Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 4103

Email: bpatel@lambeth.gov.uk

 

 

4a

Cooperative, 145 Stockwell Road London SW9 9TP (Ferndale) pdf icon PDF 276 KB

4b

Unnamed, 401 Coldharbour Lane, London, SW9 8LQ (Coldharbour) pdf icon PDF 280 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    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 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 page 106 of the agenda papers.

     

    The Licensing Officer confirmed:

     

    ·      The premises was a restaurant, bar and a nightclub.

    ·      A number of conditions had been agreed with the applicant and some licensable activities had been withdrawn from the application. These included live music, off- sales and non-standard timings.

    ·      The applicant also agreed to reduce the hours for the playing of recorded music, late-night refreshment and alcohol for consumption on the premises.

    ·      The hours of licensable activity would be Sunday to Thursday 11:00 - 00:00 and Friday to Saturday 11:00 to 00:30.

    ·      The premises would be open 11:00 to 00:30 (Sunday to Thursday) and 11:00 to 01:00 (Friday to Saturday).

    ·      A number of conditions had been agreed between all parties, but there were some conditions that needed further clarification.

    ·      Details of the application could be found on pages 107-128 of the agenda papers.

    ·      The plan could be found on page 129 of the agenda papers.

    ·      Representations could be found on page 131-157 of the agenda papers and conditions could be found on pages 159 - 161. 

     

    Mr James Demetriou, the applicant,and Mr Dadds representing the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

     

    ·      The applicant had withdrawn the playing of live music, off-sales and non-standard timings.

    ·      The hours of licensable activity would be Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 00:00 and Friday to Saturday 11:00 to 00:30 including the playing of recorded music and late night refreshment.

    ·      The opening hours would be half an hour in addition to the terminal hour for licensable activities.

    ·      The premises already had a licence until 00:00 and the applicant had given consideration to the licensing policy.

    ·      The Police and the Licensing team were content to withdraw conditions 1 and 2 and agreed a modified condition 3.

    ·      Proposed Condition 6 had been agreed with the additional wording of ‘within 24 hours’.Condition 26 had been agreed with ‘no party appeals’. 

    ·      The plan on page 129 of the agenda papers showed an internal seating area for 39 people. There was only capacity for 21 standing patrons.

    ·      The premises would be a food-led premises which would serve alcohol. The food could be considered ‘bar food’.

    ·      The DJ area would be removed.

    ·      A space for the kitchen, tables and layout had been fixed and the premises had been licensed for many years.

    ·      The Licensing team were satisfied with the conditions that had been agreed.

    ·      The licensing objectives would be met.

     

    In response to questions from Members, Mr Dadds informed the Sub-Committee that:

     

    ·      Some patrons would come into the premises to stand and drink, but it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

4c

SO.UK, 165 Clapham High Road, London, SW4 7SS (Clapham Town) pdf icon PDF 278 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    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 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Chapter 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 5.2 of the report on page 177 of the agenda papers.

     

    The Licensing Officer confirmed:

     

    ·      This was a variation application.

    ·      The application was to vary the layout of the premises in order to increase the capacity from 100 persons to 150 persons.

    ·      The applicant also wished to modify conditions restricting capacity.

    ·      Following mediation, two of the three representations submitted by Lambeth Licensing and Public Protection teams had been withdrawn. Following the additional conditions which had been agreed, a copy of the conditions had been distributed to all relevant parties.

    ·      The application could be found on pages 159 to 188 of the agenda papers.

    ·      The plan could be found on page 189 of the agenda papers. Representations could be found on pages 205 to 212.  

     

     

    Presentation by the applicant

    Mr Lee Chapman, applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

     

    ·      He had been the owner of the premises for 19 years.

    ·      His wife grew up in the flat above the premises.

    ·      The premises had undergone refurbishment recently and had been rebranded as a high-class cocktail bar.

    ·      No representations had been made from any responsible authorities and he had a good relationship with the Police and Licensing team.

    ·      The premises would not over-saturate the area with licensed premises.

    ·      The increased capacity did not mean that the premises would be full every night.

    ·      The premises would have increased security and trained SIA staff members.

    ·      The premises would have more private parties, VIP tables and cocktail-making master-classes.

    ·      Private area space was already available at the premises but the additional business from the proposed changes would add to its revenue.

    ·      The application would have no impact on patrons leaving the premises and a taxi service was available across the road.

    ·      Any Uber taxis that parked outside the premises would be monitored by security.

    ·      The premises was not usually rowdy and there had never been drunkenness associated with the premises nor had there been any issues with the Police previously.

    ·      A Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) had been completed which justified the capacity of 151 people in the premises. He was only looking for a maximum capacity of 150.

    ·      He communicated well with the Council and had agreed proposed conditions.

    ·      The business had invested in the borough for very long time.

     

    In response to questions from Members, Mr Chapman, informed the Sub-Committee that:

     

    ·      The capacity of the premises had previously been 100 persons. This was partly because the rear door was too small for a higher capacity. The premises had since been refurbished and the door had been widened, resulting in a re-evaluation of the FRA and a modified premises capacity.

    ·      The premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4c