Agenda item

Jetsam, Arch 82 Goding Street, London SE11 5AW (Prince's)

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 section 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 16 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 22 of the agenda papers.

The Licensing Officer confirmed:

·      The application sought changes to the layout of the premises, regulated entertainment, live music, recorded music and any similar activities.

·      The applicant wished to extend the operating hours until 01:00 on all days except Friday and Saturday where they wished to extend the operating hours until 02:00.

·      The representation from Licensing could be found on page 41 of the agenda papers, other representations could be found on pages 43 to 46 and many of the proposed conditions could be found on pages 69 to 70.

 

Presentation by the applicant

 

Mr Neil McCann representing the applicant and Mr Mohammed Mardan informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      The applicant wished to adopt more conditions.

·      Proposed conditions 1 and 5 could be adopted.

·      This was a straightforward application as a licence was already in place.

·      In relation to the variation of the conditions, the patrons at the premises would be predominately Middle-Eastern.The community were similar to the Spanish community in that it was common for members of the community to book a table at midnight and have dinner late into the night.

·      The average age of the patrons would be 40 to 60 years of age.

·      No representations had been made against the application and the restaurant was not associated with any crime and disorder.

·      Alcohol consumption was not common in Middle Eastern communities.

·      The conditions provided went beyond the required precautionary measures.

·      There was not likely to be any public nuisance - there had been no complaints registered for any of the applicant’s premises.

·      The borough had 24-hour nightclubs but this premises would be a well-run restaurant with door supervisors.

·      The premises would not play loud music.

·      The applicant was happy to have conditions where no individual under the age of 18 would be allowed into the premises after 23:00.

·      There had been some concern that the premises could be transformed into a nightclub. However, the conditions adopted would not be suitable for a nightclub such as the sale of alcohol being ancillary to food and there would be no dancing (apart from a belly dancer).

·      ID scanners, searches and other conditions such as these was not appropriate for arestaurant. 

·      The applicant had a spotless record and the premises would not be alcohol led.

·      The premises would be a great addition to the area rather than a 24-hour licensed premises.

·      The premises was only asking for an additional hour and would consider other conditions if suggested by the Sub-Committee.

 

In response to questions from Members, Mr McCann and Mr Mardan informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      The premises would have 100 chairs to seat patrons.

 

Presentation by interested parties

 

Ms Pam Riley, Licensing Officer,informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      There was concern that the hours that had been applied for were beyond policy hours.

·      She would suggest that if there were to be any additional conditions, then a condition could be added to say that the only regulated entertainment allowed to take place was belly dancing as this would only restrict live performers to one or two at most.

·      Most conditions outlined in the representations had been agreed, but the condition proposed for the installation of a sound limiter had not been agreed.The acceptance of that condition would go a significant way to ensuring noise nuisance was kept to a minimum. Currently, the hours requested on the licence would be an increase of the hours at a nearby premises which was also owned by the applicant.It was important to ensure that the operating hours were not an increase of the hours of the other premises owned by the applicant.

·      If the premises was to transfer the licence in the future, then there was a possibility to change the business into a nightclub. This would increase risk of antisocial behaviour and public nuisance. 

 

The applicant was recalled to address matters arising. In response to questions from Members, Mr McCann and Mr Mardan informed the Sub-Committee that:

 

·      Background music would be played but this was not likely to be a licensable activity. Occasionally, the premises would employ a single belly dancer.

·      Patrons will be present at the premises primarily to enjoy food.

·      If another operator was to take over the premises, then they would have to comply with the conditions on the licence which were completely unsuitable for a nightclub. For example, alcohol would have to be sold ancillary to food, chairs could not be removed from the area in which they were placed, there would be no takeaway option and no draft beer would be available. 

·      If an applicant wished to operate a business other thana restaurant, then they would have to make a new application.

 

Adjournment and Decision

At 7:20pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the Legal Advisor and Clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations all those who spoke. Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub- Committee decided to grant the application subject to conditions.

RESOLVED: To grant the application subject to conditions.

Announcement of Decision

Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the application subject to conditions as outlined on pages 69-70 (and set out in operating schedule) except conditions 2, 3 and 4. Full written reasons would follow in due course.

 

 

Supporting documents: