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 Linda Bray, SECONDED by Councillor Rezina Chowdhury and
That Councillor Fred Cowell be elected as 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 Rezina Chowdhury, Councillor Fred Cowell and Councillor Linda Bray all stated that they had no pecuniary interest in the application for The Duke of Edinburgh but had visited the premises in the past.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2019 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes held on 1 November 2019 be approved as a correct record of the proceedings.
Strategic Director, Sustainable Growth and Opportunity
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 16 of the Statutory Guidance and to section 5 of the Statement of Licensing Policy (policies 1, 3, 4 and 8), 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 pages 10 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that:
· This was an application for a new premises licence.
· The application was submitted on 17 July 2019 and received 101 representations.
· There were 17 representations against the application and 84 in support.
· The 17 representations against included residents,Public Protection, Police and Licensing.
· Video evidence was available for the Sub-Committee to inspect if required.
· The applicant had a digital audio file and had submitted supporting information.
· The applicant had amended the proposed operating schedule.
Presentation by the applicant
Mr Gary Grant Barrister (and Ms Rebecca Ingram), representing the applicant and Mr Steven Mulgrave, the applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· There had been engagement with the Licensing team.
· There was agreement between the applicant and Licensing team on every condition with the exception of the premises maximum capacity.
· There were some issues some residents still had with the application.
· The premises was a small pub with a large beer garden. This was why a large element of the business model was based on the beer garden.
· The premises had been historically used for louder forms of entertainment, such as live recorded music events.
· The applicant would not use the premises for regulated entertainment.
· The maximum safe capacity in the beer garden was originally 902 people.
· For a time, the applicant had operated to a maximum capacity of 902 persons. This capacity had been set by the Fire Authority (and this was not a matter for Licensing).
· A maximum capacity of 721 for the beer garden had been formally agreed with the London Fire Brigade yesterday. This is included appropriate measures such as the removal of liquid petroleum and gas canisters.
· The maximum safe capacity for the premises itself without the use of the beer garden was 200 persons.
· The applicant was proposing a significantly reduced maximum number of allowed patrons which was well below the maximum safe capacity in order to meet concerns regarding nuisance created by too many people occupying the beer garden.
· The applicant proposed a maximum capacity of 550 persons (patrons) as a maximum capacity for the beer garden (with a maximum capacity of 180 people inside the building itself).
· Implementing a maximum capacity of 550 patrons in the beer garden was the equivalent to a 40% reduction on the original maximum capacity of 902 persons (and a 24% reduction on the revised agreed safety capacity of 721).
· The applicant was asked to consider the minimum capacity the business needed in order for the business to ... view the full minutes text for item 4a