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 at least six months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available on upon request.

If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to being filmed and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If you are addressing the Committee your contribution will be recorded and broadcast.”

Webcasting

The Chair announced that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and would be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available to those that requested them. Those participating in the meeting were deemed to be consenting to being filmed.

Application resolved

The Boys! Boys! Boys! Gallery Café application (item 9) was resolved ahead of the hearing therefore it was not considered.

Late papers

A supplementary agenda was published on 25 September 2024 which included late papers relating to Sir Colin Campbell (item 8), submitted by the Applicant.  A late paper was circulated on 26 September 2024 relating to the same application from the Police.

There was no urgent business.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 August 2024.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 22 August 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

There was no urgent business.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

This is an application to vary a premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Supporting Communities detailing an application to vary a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003. 

Paru Bhudia, Licensing Officer, summarised the report. It was confirmed that Appendix 5 (page 88 of the agenda) listed the Licensing Authority’s requested conditions.    The Applicant had agreed to accept conditions 2, 3, 6, and 7.

The Panel agreed to admit the late papers included within the supplementary agenda and the circulated document from the parties. Panel Members were satisfied that all parties had an opportunity to read the papers and they were relevant to the hearing.

Gav Strang, Applicant and DPS and general manager of the premises, confirmed that if Members were not minded to grant the extended hours as applied for he would be willing to reduce the hours to the following: 11.00am – midnight Monday to Thursday, 11.00am – 1.00am Friday and Saturday, 11.00am – 12.30am Sunday. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the premises had been previously licensed for those hours in 2018.

PC Rachel Aldis, Police responsible authority, summarised their representation included within the main agenda (pages 85 – 87) and the additional document circulated which included their proposed conditions. The main points raised in the representation included:

·       The Applicant failed to respond to emails regarding scheduling a meeting, which the Applicant requested, to discuss the application, therefore mediation was not possible before the hearing.

·       The premises was located within a close vicinity to a large number of residential properties and the extension of hours would increase noise disturbance.

·       The extension of hours would attract people who wanted to drink late at night and would increase alcohol-related crime and disorder.

In response to questions, PC Rachel Aldis confirmed the following points:

·       If the Panel were minded to grant the application, the Police urged the Panel to agree only up to framework hours and not the applied for hours.

·       As detailed in the agenda, it was confirmed that the crime figures showed that in the last 6 months (9 February – 9 August 2024) 12 calls to the Police or crime investigations had occurred at or were linked to the premises. The reports/calls to Police include assaults, theft, suspicious circumstances and a number of burglaries. Further information about the crimes could not be discussed because the crime reports had not been submitted. PC Rachel Aldis stated that this level of crime reporting was consistent with a late night venue closing at 2.00-3.00am and, therefore was higher than the expected level.

·       The Applicant stated that some of the crimes linked to the premises would have resulted from staff members helping victims of crime and not connected to late closing hours. PC Rachel Aldis confirmed that three to four of the reports were burglaries that took place at the premises, where there had been a victim of a burglary, and the remaining eight were crimes were of criminal damage, theft or calls to the police asking for assistance.

Esther Jones, Licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

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

This application was resolved ahead of the meeting, therefore was not considered.

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.

Paru Bhudia, Licensing Officer, summarised the report.

Haydar Ozcan and Mahir Kilic, Applicants, stated there were no amendments to the application but they would agree to add the “Ask for Angela” condition as part of  the  application.

Johnny White, local resident interested party, summarised their representation included within the main agenda (pages 174) and stated that he lived above the venue. The following points were made:

·       Since making the representation, he and his partner had a positive and reassuring face-to-face conversation with the Applicant, who was friendly and approachable, and now the line of communication was open. The intention of residents was not to have tension between the parties or complaints to be raised without reason. The Applicant discussed sound proofing and confirmed the venue would be a restaurant and not a pub, which had been a concern to residents. Residents would have liked prior consultation between the Applicant and local residents to make the process easier.

·       Resident concerns remined about noise disturbance from the garden due to the intense sound amplification of the area, where currently quiet conversations could be heard through single-glazed bedroom windows overlooking over the garden.

·       The proposed extractor fan would affect the residents living situations, because according to the plans the equipment would pass through the balcony of a flat and would be visible from the bedroom - however it was noted that this was a planning matter and not licensing. Jonny White stated he wished for there to be no tensions between the venue and local neighbours as this would be stressful if the licence application was granted by the Panel.

Monika Szczygiel, local resident interested party, summarised their representation included within the main agenda (pages 169 – 172) and stated that she was a long-term neighbouring resident of more than a decade. In summary, the following points were made:

·       Currently the nature of the premises was a daytime café closing at 5.00pm and the application sought much longer opening hours, opening earlier and closing later, which would disrupt quiet evenings for local residents.

·       Sound carried heavily in the garden area due to it being a patio with brick walls, therefore to seat 10-15 customers at one time in the garden whilst the neighbouring rented flats only had single glazing windows to protect them from noise was a concern.

·       The noise assessment was not carried out on the roof of the resident flats as stated in the report, but was carried out on the roof of the business, which was approximately 2 metres further away than the bedroom windows.

·       There were women safety concerns due to the majority of the residents living in the building being female and living alone, and it could be intimidating for women returning home next to a venue open late into the evening with potentially drunken behaviour.

·       The pavement was narrow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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 26 September 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).