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:
Councillor Martin Tiedemann
declared a pecuniary interest in relation to item 3b on the agenda
(Knowles of Norwood). Councillor Matthew Bennett would replace
Councillor Tiedemann for the duration of that item.
The Sub-Committee was informed
that this was an application for a variation to the current
premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to
chapters 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 5,
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 5.8 of the
report on page 4.
In response to questions from
Members, the Licensing Officer confirmed:
The application
originally sought regulated entertainment Thursday to Saturday
until 1am and to extend the sale of alcohol on these days also to
1am. However, the applicant had since amended the application to
cease all licensable activities at midnight on Fridays and
Saturdays and withdraw entirely the part of the application
relating to Thursdays
Nine representations
had been received opposing the application
A series of
conditions had been agreed between the Noise Team and the
applicant. These had been circulated
A map and photographs of the
premises were circulated.
Presentation by the Applicant
Mr JustinoMonteiro,
applicant, and his associate Mr Jose Manuel Rocha, informed the
Sub-Committee that:
The venue was a
café and restaurant and they had been there for four
years
The total area of the
premises was approximately 155 square metres
They wished to extend
the hours to increase income and cater for customers who currently
went elsewhere when Just in Case closed but had listened to
residents’ concerns and therefore amended their application
as outlined
In response to questions from
Members, Mr Monteiro and Mr Rocha
confirmed:
They currently
stopped serving alcohol at 10pm in the week as opposed to the
terminal hour in their existing licence of 11pm. This was because
the venue was quiet in the week. The cleaning was done between 10pm
and 11pm. There was trade on Friday and Saturday night
however
They planned to host
events, exhibitions and workshops relating to Portuguese and
Brazilian culture if the application was granted
On Fridays and
Saturdays there would be half an hour of drinking up time and they
would close at 00:30
Their planning
permission limited trading hours to 11pm but planning matters could
not be taken into account in relation to licensing
decisions
They had only had one
temporary event notice in the last 12 months
The venue capacity
was around 30-35 seated on the ground floor and around 20-25 seated
in the basement. The ground floor was principally a restaurant
while the basement would hold events. Most of the music played in
the basement would be acoustic
In relation to the
reference in the representations to use of the outside area, it was
stated that this occurred years ago and this area had not been in
use since 2011
Regarding the
assertion by two of the objectors that loud music was played at
around 8am on 15 December 2013, Mr Monteiro stated that he was not there at the time
and ...
view the full minutes text for item 3a
The Sub-Committee was informed
that this was an application for a new premises licence. The
Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 8, 9 and 10
of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 5.9 of the report on page
4.
In response to questions from
Members, the Licensing Officer confirmed:
This was a new
application seeking recorded music and supply of alcohol on the
premises from midday to midnight Sunday to Wednesday, and 1am
Thursday to Saturday, and late night refreshment to 00:30 Sunday to
Wednesday and 01:00 Thursday to Saturday
The application also
sought a terminal hour of 2am on certain public
holidays
Six representations
had been received against the application, including from Planning,
the Noise Team and Lancaster Avenue Residents’ Association
(LARA)
Planning could not be
considered when making decisions regarding Licensing; however, the
planning information was included as it was mentioned in
residents’ representations
28 representations
had been received in support of the premises but these were
received out of time and were therefore not valid. They had however
been re-submitted as additional information in support of the
application and circulated to the Sub-Committee members
A map and photographs of the
premises were circulated.
Presentation by the Applicant
Mr Max Alderman, representing
Antic London, informed the Sub-Committee that:
He had made an
identical application five years ago for the original Knowles of
Norwood site, which was granted; however, it was then discovered
the building would have been too expensive to convert. They were in
the process of purchasing the freehold of this site from the
Co-op
The aim was to
provide a great local pub, for which there was a lot of support
locally
Antic ran 32 pubs
including six in Lambeth
The premises were
located on a relatively busy street
He was aware of the
history of the nightclub which had operated on the other side of
the road and understood why some residents may therefore have
concerns
He agreed to almost
all of the Noise conditions
He accepted that the
planning consent did not tally with the licence application;
however, the hours sought were in line with all of their other
pubs. He planned to apply for an extension in the planning hours
were the licence to be granted as per the application
In response to questions from
Members, Mr Alderman confirmed:
He disagreed that
closing at 1.30am did not fit with the idea of a local pub
nowadays. The fundamentals of a good pub were to provide good beer,
excellent service and ambience
Though the planning
details stated that there were two separate areas, one of which
would be a pub and the other a restaurant, these would in fact all
be part of the same premises
The Sub-Committee was informed
that this was an application for a variation to the current
premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to
chapters 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections
5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 17 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 5.8 of the
report on page 4.
In response to questions from
Members, the Licensing Officer confirmed:
This was an
application to vary the licence to provide off sales of alcohol 24
hours a day
The current
proprietor, Mr Shamoon Chaudhary,
became the licence holder on 18 November 2013. The application to
vary the licence was made on 12 November 2013 by the previous
licence holder, Mr Nisar
Ahmed
A map and photographs of the
premises were circulated.
Presentation by the Applicant
Mr Shamoon Chaudhary, premises licence holder,
informed the Sub-Committee that:
He had read the
representations and would go through the points raised in
turn
It was submitted that
there were already sufficient 24/7 off licences and that the area
was saturated; however, there was only one 24/7 shop in the near
vicinity and this was on the opposite side of Streatham High Road,
which was very difficult to cross. The next nearest ones were
around half a mile away on either side
He denied ever
selling alcohol to drunk people. He
stated that his staff were trained, he upheld the licensing
objectives and was in full compliance with the Licensing Act
2003
There had been very
few incidents in the shop and he had only called the police twice
– once in relation to a person who had a grievance with the
previous owner, and once when an underage customer stole some
cigarettes and, in fleeing, punched Mr Chaudhary’s friend. It
was notable that there was no representation from the
police
The premises was a mini market and sold many items other
than alcohol. Alcohol accounted for around 30% of
revenue
He was concerned he
may lose customers if the licence was not extended and believed
this was a matter of survival for the business. If he had to close,
redundancies would result which would affect five
families
In relation to
litter, the bins were at the back of the premises and were fully
secured. CCTV covered this area. He also had a waste management
contract. A copy of this was passed to the
Sub-Committee
There had only been
one representation from a local resident
He had a petition in
support of his application which had been signed by 69 people in
the shop; however, as this had not been submitted in advance it was
ruled inadmissible
In relation to the
Trading Standards representation, both of the underage purchases
related to the time that Mr Ahmed was in charge. There had not been
any failed test purchases since 2010 and several had been passed
...
view the full minutes text for item 3c
PDF 83 KB