Venue: Microsoft Teams
Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Democratic Services, 020 7926 0028, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Election of Chair
Rezina Chowdhury Martin Tiedemann
RESOLVED: 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.
None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2021 and 20 April 2021 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 30 March 2021 and 20 April 2021 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
Strategic Director of Residents Services
Contact: Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 4103
The Chair explained that the matters described in the report related to an alleged offence committed rising from the breach of the government’s coronavirus regulations. As the criminal matter was yet to be determined by the Magistrates court, the Sub-Committee was minded to re-schedule the hearing of this review after the determination of the Magistrates court.
In response to questions from Members, PC Mike Constable informed the Sub-Committee that:
· As it was unclear how long the interested parties would have to wait for the court hearing to be concluded.
· He would like the application to be heard.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· She concurred with the Police.
· Humanity was in unprecedented times.
· It was unclear how long the interested parties would have to wait for the court hearing to be concluded.
· The application also related to the premises licence holder demonstrating a failure to uphold the licensing objectives.
In response to questions from Members, Mr David Dadds representing the premises licence holder, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· It was unknown when the court hearing would be concluded.
· He was still waiting for the preliminary decision of the prosecuting authority.
· In the event that coronavirus regulations had been broken, the Police or another responsible authority (relating to coronavirus regulations enforcement) could issue a direction. Other legislation was available to address the breach of coronavirus regulations.
The Sub-Committee reviewed what it had heard on the question, took legal advice and decided to defer its consideration of the review application as so much of it relied on the determination of facts yet to be considered by the Magistrates court. The heart of the application was so intimately connected to the issues relating to that court hearing that, the Sub-Committee felt that it would be best to proceed once a decision had been made by the Magistrates court so as to avoid prejudicing the rights of all parties and therefore the application would be deferred until 11 October 2021. If the Magistrates court had not dealt with the matter by then, then another decision could be taken on whether or not to hear the application. However, if the Magistrates court dealt with the issue earlier than expected, then the applicant should inform the clerk to the Licensing Committee of that.
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was a Temporary Event Notice (TEN). The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 7, and 9 of the Statutory Guidance and to Sections 5, 5.11, 5.20, 5.27, 5.35 (policy 6) 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 152 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) submitted by Mr John Morrison.
· The notice was received on 5 April 2021.
· The event was to be held from 12:00 on 10 July 2021 until 07:00 the next day.
· Objections had been submitted by the Police and Public Protection and both parties wished for a counter notice to be submitted.
· Following receipt of objections, the Notice Giver had provided additional information in order to address concerns and these had been circulated to all parties.
The Sub-Committee stated that they would like to hear from the Notice Giver primarily before the applicant so that the nature of the event could be outlined.
Presentation by the Notice Giver
Mr Jonathan Morrison, Notice Giver, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· He and his flatmates had built a bar in the garden area which had been of great use.
· He had held five to six events of a similar scale at the premises in the past.
· In the past, when parties have been held had been issues of patrons going in and out the house and leaving the front door open or other issues of a similar nature.
· He had never received a noise complaint about the events he had held or about the noise of the music.
· There had been some security issues and concerns which had been raised as a result of people coming in and out of the house and leaving the front door open.
· The area had a 24 hour off-licence so access to alcohol at the event itself would not make much of a difference regarding access to alcohol.
· Nobody under 18 would be invited to the event.
· Mitigations had been put in place to avoid public nuisance.
· He was happy to not engage with off sales of alcohol if the Sub-Committee felt it was not appropriate.
· He was happy to reduce the operating hours. He noted the operating hours were quite significant and it was possible that people could drink later than they would have done.
· The capacity stated on the notice was for 100 people and this had been based on previous events held at the premises.
· Usually only a maximum of 50 people would show up at and event at any one time.
· He had stated at 100 people on the notice as many people hadn't seen each other in the past year. He had to 69 people who had confirmed attendance, but of those, it was likely that 20 people were not likely to attend.
In response to ... view the full minutes text for item 5a
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 to Chapter 5 (policies 1 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 paragraphs 6.2 of the report on pages 30 and 31 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application for a new premises licence.
· The premises was to operate as a coffee shop.
· The applicant sought the sale of alcohol for consumption on and off premises Thursday - Friday 07:00 to 19:00 and Saturday – Wednesday 07:00 to 18:00.
· The operating hours would be half an hour later than the listenable activity sought.
· Representations had been received from Licensing and nine local residents.
· Additional papers had been forwarded to all parties.
Representing the applicant, Mr Foulton, Mr Baines and Mr Mason, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· There were four conditions out of 26 that the applicant could not agree with Licensing.
· The premises was a coffee shop. Patrons bought coffee snacks and goods.
· The courtyard had been adequately refurbished to a high standard so it could be used by people working in the building and all members of the public could use the courtyard throughout the day.
· The high-strength alcohol that would be sold was the craft ale which was a specialised product in bottles and cans.
· The applicant did not want to sell excessively strong beer to be drunk in large quantities.
· The manufacturer of craft beer would deliver the goods in small containers. To propose no more than four of such a product to be stocked was restrictive and unnecessary.
· The applicant was not selling beer to cater for drunk or disorderly individuals. The premises would sell healthy products including its food and alcohol.
· Vertical drinking was a problem in High Street venues.
· The courtyard should not be thought of as a High Street venue.
· The other licensed premises run by the applicant was not famous for drinking related issues and had been running for many years.
· The business specialised in niche alcoholic products and by default did not attract street drinkers.
Ms Bina Patel, Licensing Manager, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· There was a lack of clarity regarding how alcoholic drinks will be served.
· If patrons would not be served by a table service only, then it was unclear how patrons would be served.
· People buying alcohol and walking into the courtyard area may not be in attractant for vertical drinking, but it may attract other patrons to join in and this would have an impact on the licensing objectives.
· It was important that any form of street drinking be prevented and that was why proposals have been made to restrict the sale of high-strength products.
· Without knowing what kind of specialist ... view the full minutes text for item 4a