Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be agreed.

No apologies were received.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 recorded and broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for six months after the meeting. After that time, recordings 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.”

There were no notifications of urgent business.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5^th January 2023.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 5^th January 2023.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting on 5^th January 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.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and highlighted that the Police representation had been withdrawn, following discussions with the Applicant. There were 13 representations which had been received from local residents. 

A request was made by Gary Grant, the counsel for the Interested Parties from Inverforth House, for 15 minutes for his submission. David Graham, the counsel for Inverforth Close residents, supported the request for 15 minutes for each of the two sets of Interested Parties. The counsel for the Corporation of London, Matthew Lewin, said he had no objection to this request. The Panel agreed that Mr Grant and Mr Graham would have 15 minutes each to make their clients’ case.

Mr Lewin was asked if there were any amendments to the Application. He said that the conditions that the Applicant was now offering were on pages 115-116 of the agenda.

Mr Grant addressed the Panel on behalf of the Inverforth House residents and made the following points in his submission:

·         Apart from two cafes, this was the first time there had been a licence application for the Heath;

·         The private gardens of Inverforth House abutted the pergola. There was only 30 metres at the closest point between the building and Hampstead Heath;

·         Residents objected to the intensification for commercial purposes of the pergola area;

·         It had historically been a quiet area and had won European accolades for being a ‘quiet park’;

·         The bye-laws of the Heath forbade music and singing;

·         The outsourcing of events to a private firm meant they would have a commercial interest in selling more alcohol;

·         Although events would not be held on Sundays, some would be held on Saturdays. This could disturb the quiet observance of the Sabbath for observant Jewish residents.

·         Residents had already complained about noise from the pergola, and noise nuisance could increase if the licence was granted;

·         There had been no noise risk assessments. Residents had had to engage their own acoustic consultant.

Mr Grant then called Torben Anderson, an acoustics expert, as a witness. Mr Anderson said that 200 people talking and listening to a string quartet would produce noise 10dB above the normal level, and this level of noise could have a significant adverse impact on residents living adjacent to the area. Even with 75 people present, the noise would be 9dB above the normal acceptable level.

An Interested Party, Harry Solomon, addressed the Panel to state he already suffered from noise nuisance from events on the Heath and was of the view that it would become worse if the licence was granted.

Mr Graham addressed the Panel on behalf of the Inverforth Close residents and made the following points:

·         The Corporation of London was itself a licensing authority and had not followed the standards in making this application that it would expect of applicants making an application to them.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

There was no other 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 21^st March 2023 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).