Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance be agreed.

There were no apologies.

There were no declarations.

Broadcast of the meeting

The Chair to announce the following: ‘In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record this meeting, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting is being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available upon request.

If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to having your contributions recorded and broadcast, including video when switched on, and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.’

Broadcast of the Meeting

The Chair made the following announcement: “In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record this meeting, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting is being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for six months after the meeting.

After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available upon request. If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to having your contributions recorded and broadcast, including video when switched on, and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.”

Supplementary Agenda

A supplementary agenda was published on 3 April 2024 which included late papers relating to item 8, Humdingers Camden.

There was no urgent business.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2023.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2023 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

This is an application for a new premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities detailing an application for a new premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Peter Agbley, Licensing Officer, summarised the report.

Steven Dormer, Licensing Authority responsible authority, addressed the Panel and spoke to their written representation. Steven Dormer stated that the Applicant had not engaged with the Licensing Authority since their representation had been submitted and their proposed conditions.   

Mrs. Otoole, objector interested party, addressed the Panel and spoke to their written representation. The following points were made:

·       Mrs. Otoole was a carer for a disabled resident and also was a resident living in Goldsmith Court, which was directly above the premises. There were eight Goldsmith Court residents living above the café next to the Imaginarium Gallery (Verona Café) on 184 Drury Lane which housed six disabled aging residents who were supported by carers.

·       Residents already suffered anti-social and criminal behaviour close to the premises. The premises was already surrounded by licenced establishments where drunken behaviour effected residents. Residents were also disturbed by people smoking, talking loudly and people congregating on the street by Goldsmith Court. The pedestrianised nature of the street attracted loitering.

·       Residents also suffered drug dealing in the area which had attention of the MET Police Operation Yamata. On 26 March 2024 Goldsmith Court was broken into and suffered costly damage which the Police believe was caused by addicts.

·       If a new alcohol licence was to be granted, Mrs. Otoole believed conditions would worsen for residents. Goldsmith Court had many floor to ceiling height windows which were double glazed and they already suffered noise nuisance from the street. Despite the Gallery being soundproofed, Goldsmith Court residents could hear people walking on the stairs in the premises if they were wearing hard soled shoes on the hard floor.

·       Goldsmith Court residents were disturbed everyday by unsocial delivery times of neighbouring venues.

·       Mrs. Otoole stated the premises application had the foundations to morph into an all day drinking venue.

·       Mrs. Otoole said that if smoking was not permitted outside of the entrance of the premises, customers would instead move to the corner of Goldsmith Court and the smoke would still effect residents.

·       Mrs. Otoole said that in her view an art gallery could operate without an alcohol licence.

Nick Semper, legal representative to the Applicant, accompanied by John Kissane, the Applicant, addressed the Panel and spoke the application. The following points were made:

·       The application was for an intimate new basement venue which would host immersive digital art exhibitions where alcohol was ancillary to the customer experience. The premises would not be a late-night venue and would only provide on-site sale of alcohol. The nature of the venue was not an all day drinking establishment.

·       The Applicant had accepted conditions from the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA) and they withdrew their representation.

·       No responsible authorities had made a representation.

·       The premises was capable of promoting the licencing objectives.

·       Many of the concerns from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

This is an application for a new premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities detailing an application for a new premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Peter Agbley, Licensing Officer, summarised the report.

The Panel agreed to admit the late papers.

Sam Doran, representative of all objecting interested parties, addressed the Panel and spoke to the written representations.  Also in attendance were objecting interest parties Caroline Lobsang, Gerald Doran, Paul Olliff and Eleanor Olliff. The following points were made:

·       All objectors were owner-occupiers of the flats immediate to the premises and were directly affected by the operation because they shared a party wall that four bedrooms joined onto (including a 17 month old baby); there was a shared lightwell which the Humdingers toilet and window joined onto; and there was an alleyway which granted access to the three flats which was metres from the front door of the Humdingers entrance. There were historical issues with antisocial behaviour in the alley way. Since Humdingers were operating this alley way had been used for smoking.

·       There had been no previous issues with premises operating on the site, however this application proposed a new and extended use for alcohol sales and live music.

·       When residents met with Humdingers, the vertical drinking issue was addressed, however the primary concern of noise and live music was not addressed.  Additionally, during the meeting there was no mention by Humdingers of the tables and chairs licence application, which would have been a considerate and appropriate time to raise in the spirit of the conversation.

·       An email from Humdingers to residents stated that “without withdrawing our objections they would get intermittent late licences so they can have late night drum and bass parties until 02:00am”. This email was taken as a threatening message to residents and implied they were powerless.

·       Humdingers had not offered any measures to mitigate the impact of noise from the venue on neighbouring residents, for example installing sound proofing. 

In response to questions, objectors confirmed the following points:

·       Noise creation from customers congregating outside the venue was a concern, particularly when loudness was enhanced by alcohol late into the evening. On the small public highway in this residential area the sound of voices could travel down the road and through windows easily.

·       If the licence were granted, there was no way to limit live music at the venue. The communication from the venue to residents initially was proposing cheese and fine wine evenings which had now turned into threats of a late night music licence premises. A granting of this licence would carry great risk in exposing residents to disturbance.

·       After a request from residents, Humdingers said they would not agree to keeping the toilet window shut attach to the lightwell.

·       There had been a statutory notice in the widow of Humdingers for the table and chairs licence, however it was not mentioned to residents as part of their conversations. The notice was only noticed by residents after their meeting and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

There was no urgent business.

Should the Panel wish to go into closed session, it will take the following resolution:

THAT the press and public be excluded from the proceedings of the Licensing Panel on 4 April 2024 during consideration of the respective item on the agenda on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that were members of the public to be present, there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Specifically -

Publicity in respect of item x would be likely to lead to the disclosure of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings by virtue of Category 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).