Venue: Microsoft Teams
Contact: Nazyer Choudhury, Democratic Services, 020 7926 0028, Email: email@example.com
Election of Chair
Councillor Timothy Windle
RESOLVED: 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.
None were declared.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2021 as a correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 March 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 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, 9, and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Chapter 5 (policies 1, 7 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 page 19 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application for a new premises licence.
· The applicant was seeking live music, recorded music and late-night refreshment from 23:00 to 23:30 Sunday to Thursday and 23:00-00:30 on Friday and Saturday.The sale of alcohol was sought from 11:00 to 23:00 Sunday-Thursday and 11:00- 00:00 on Friday and Saturday.
· That was an error in the Licensing Officer’s report which should have stated that the terminal hour for late night refreshment was 00:30. Further, the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol should state 00:00 on Fridays and Saturdays.
· Representations had been made against the application from Public Protection and Police.
· Additional documentation had been provided by the applicant and had been circulated to all parties.
Presentation by the applicant
The applicant’s representative, Ms Catherine Ravenscourt informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The premises would operate as a restaurant and the main focus would be food.
· Although the licence was for the sale of alcohol, conditions stated that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the sale of food.
· The applicants previously operated at 127 Clapham High Street and ceased trading last year.
· The premises was slightly larger than the previously owned premises, but not by much.
· The premises was an Italian restaurant and was considered to be a family restaurant with casual dining as part of the applicants’ aim.
· The premises would operate in a modern way and there would be a bar area for patrons who would be waiting for dining tables.
· The plan had been slightly amended after detailed discussions with the Health and Safety advisor who looked at the fire safety aspects of the plans and had found a better and more effective way of dealing with fire safety.
· The new plans mainly involved the kitchen area being moved to the basement floor as a ground floor kitchen would be in obstruction of a fire exit.
· Regarding concerns of the premises being located in a cumulative impact zone, it should be noted that the premises was a family friendly restaurant and the applicants did not presume that the premises would add to the stress levels in the area.
· The premises was not a drinking establishment and would finish no later than 00: 30.
· The latest time alcohol would be sold was at 00:00.
· The premises could fit a total of 75 people with 55 on the ground floor and 20 on the floor below.
· The premises at 127 Clapham High Street had closed and the new premises would be opened in its ... view the full minutes text for item 4a
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a review of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance and to Sections 1 and 5 (policy 10) 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 78 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
· This was an application to review the premises.
· The application had been submitted by the Police.
· The review application had been supported by Public Protection and Licensing.
· The applicant had submitted body worn footage which had been submitted to the members of the Sub-Committee.
At this point in the proceedings, it was clarified that prior to the meeting, the applicant had submitted video evidence (the body worn footage) in consideration of the application and a discussion was held between all parties as to whether or not the video evidence needed to be displayed at the meeting and considered as part of the application. The Sub-Committee decided to not consider the video evidence submitted by the applicant as it would not materially affect the application further than what had already been outlined in the agenda papers.
Presentation by the applicant
PC Dave Watson informed the Sub-Committee that:
· The premises was a relatively newly licensed premises.
· He had dealt with the original application in August 2020 and proposed 15 conditions on the licence.
· He was mindful of the fact that the premises was quite small and the alcohol being sold was simply part of what the premises was meant to offer.
· The licence holder had accepted the proposed conditions without negotiating.
· He was later contacted by another sergeant after an allegation had been made that the premises had breached the government’s coronavirus regulations.
· Based on the information that was given to him, he sought CCTV footage for the date the alleged breach was meant to have happened (29 January 2021).
· He was informed that the footage would be ready for collection on the following Tuesday.
· The DPS had informed Police that the CCTV could not be collected due to technical issues.
· A meeting was held with the DPS, the co-owner, where all the conditions were outlined. He was mindful that the DPS understood the conditions and requirements which needed to be met.
· He was later informed by a colleague that an officer had visited the premises and found more than six people in attendance at the premises.
· He requested further CCTV footage covering the period of time in question to verify the allegation and he was told that the footage would be ready in a few days’ time.
· Later, upon visiting the premises on 9 February 2021, it appeared that the DPS did not appear to know who he (PC Watson) was or any idea why he was there.
In response to questions from Members,PC ... view the full minutes text for item 4b