Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance be agreed

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Jenny Headlam-Wells.

Councillor Jonathan Simpson was in attendance as substitute.

There were none.

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 recorded and 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.

There was no such notification.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd November 2022.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the meeting that took place on 3^rd November 2022.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes be approved and signed as correct records.

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 took the Panel through the report and advised that there were two corrections, the premises was located in Camden Town ward, not Haverstock ward as stated therefore the premises was within the Camden Town Culminative Impact Policy Area (CIA).

The Licensing Officer advised that the Police Responsible Authority had agreed conditions with the applicant so had withdrawn their representation. Therefore, four relevant representations opposing the application remained, and these were from the Licensing Authority responsible authority, two local ward Councillors, and a local resident.

The licensing objectives engaged by the application were prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring public safety, prevention of public nuisance, and protection of children from harm.

It was confirmed that there were no amendments to the application.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer, representing the Licensing Responsible Authority, outlined her objections to the application, as outlined in her written submission.

The Chair confirmed that none of the interested parties were in attendance, and their submissions were taken as read by the Panel.

The applicants, then summarised the application and responded to questions as follows:

·       The intention to have off-sales was not central to the business and the applicant intended to serve alcohol ancillary to a meal but wanted the flexibility of having off-sales for those customers who wished to order to takeaway.

·       The alcohol offering would include beer, cider and cocktails. No strong beer or larger would be available to for purchase. 

• It was not likely that an online delivery service would be used, but customers would be able to take away food and drink from the premises to consume elsewhere.

The Committee were concerned that the off-sales aspect of the application would not promote the licensing objectives and sought advice from the Legal Adviser as to whether they could refuse this part of the application, if necessary. The Legal Adviser stated that the panel could refuse but they were also able to consider whether appropriate conditions could be applied to ensure the licensing objectives were upheld.

The Licensing Responsible Authority and the Applicant then made some closing remarks.

Decision and reasons

Panel Members confirmed that they had been able to follow and understand the submissions and discussion in relation to this application.

In deliberation, the Panel noted the comments from the Licensing Responsible Authority, the written submissions from the interested parties and information provided by the applicant’s representative.

The Panel considered that the premises was situated in a CIA, however felt that the application met some of the exceptions to the policy and that the applicant had proven that they would promote the licensing objective and, therefore, the application should be granted.

However, the panel were concerned about the off-sales and agreed that a condition that ensured that alcohol was only sold ancillary to food should be applied. Furthermore, if the business decided to operate a  ...  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.

The Licensing Officer took the Panel through the report and advised that sixteen representations had been received opposing the application. However, the Police Responsible Authority and the Licensing Responsible Authority had withdrawn their representation. Therefore fourteen relevant representations remained from a Councillor, a Resident Association and twelve local residents.

The licensing objectives engaged by this application were the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, the Prevention of Public Nuisance, Public Safety, and the Protection of Children from Harm. The hours policy was engaged by this application in relation to the proposed terminal times for licensable activities.

The applicant’s representative confirmed that there were no amendments to the application.

Marie-Louise James, a local resident, also speaking on behalf of her neighbours Derek Holwill, Kyriacos Michael Michaelides, Jon Kai and Daniel Barber, summarised their objections to the application.

Andrew Smith, a local resident, summarised his objections to the application.

Gary Soldoff, a local resident, also speaking on behalf of his neighbour Henrietta Fudakowski, summarised their objections to the application.

Clive Henderson, representing the Charlotte Street Association, summarised his objections to the application, as outlined in his written submission.

Responding to a question from a Panel Member regarding the proposed condition that required the addition of silencers and soundproofing to mitigate noise from the extraction fans, Marie-Louise James confirmed that she was not satisfied this condition would address her concerns about noise as she believed there was no guarantee that the applicant would fulfil this.

Panel Members reminded interested parties that planning matters could not be considered by the Licensing Panel and that they should raise any concerns or enforcement issues with the Planning Service.

Sarah Clover, barrister, was representing and accompanied by the Applicant and owner, Hekmat Bavary. The applicant’s representative summarised the application and then the applicant and applicant’s representative provided the following information in response to questions:

• Several of the issues raised by the interested parties were not licensing considerations and should therefore not be considered by the Panel.
• The parking on the pavement that the interested parties had expressed concern over at the opening event was not a licensing consideration. The applicant did not have any control of where cars were parked, but the event was private and well managed with security staff present, no music was played, and the event was hosted between 17.00hrs and 22.00hrs in an effort to be considerate to neighbours.
• Whilst some customers would come to the premises late at night, it was not expected that footfall would be high after 23.00hrs, and it would likely be that the majority of customer would order through a delivery service at this time.
• Cheatmeals used Uber Eats as their sole delivery company and was not in control over the vehicles that this provider used.
• Due to the Central London location of this particular store,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

There was none.