Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance be agreed.

There were none.

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 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 urgent business.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd November 2023.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED -

THAT the Minutes of the meeting that took place on 23^rd November 2023 be agreed and signed as an accurate 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 took the Panel through the report and advised that seven representations had been received opposing the application, including representation from the Police, Public Health, and Licensing Authority Responsible Authorities.

The premises was located within the Camden Town Culminative Impact Policy Area (CIA), so there was a rebuttable presumption to refuse the application.

The applicant’s representative advised there were no amendments to the application, however additional conditions had been agreed with the Police Responsible Authority.

Police Constable Joel Francis, representing the Police Responsible Authority, made submissions to the panel by summarising the objections set out in their written representation.

Esther Jones, Licensing Team Leader, representing the Licensing Responsible Authority, made submissions to the panel, and summarised the objections set out in their written representation.

Responding to a question, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that, should the Licence be granted they had recommended in their written submission that framework hours should be applied and a condition requiring the premises to sign up for the Ask for Angela scheme and employees attend WAVE training be added to the licence. However, the applicant had not confirmed whether they were agreeable to these additional measures.

Patricia Thomas, interested party, and representing Kate Gemmel, of the Tenants and Residents Association Camden Town (TRACT), summarised objections to the application, as outlined in their written submissions.

Patricia Thomas proposed 10 conditions as follows to be added to the licence if members were minded to grant it:

1)         Licensable activities should be within framework hours.

2)         There will be a maximum capacity of 40 customers.

3)         There shall be a smoking area for a maximum of five people at any one time, which shall be managed by staff to avoid disturbance to residents.

4)         Alcohol must only be served ancillary to a substantial meal and only to seated customers.

5)         Any off sales must be preordered and sold ancillary to a meal and must only be delivered to a private residential or business address.

6)         There must be no audible noise that causes disturbance to neighbouring residents.

7)         There shall be background music only.

8)         Delivery operatives shall use non-motorised or electric bicycles only.

9)         Delivery operatives must be allowed access to WC facilities and fresh drinking water.

10)      One Security Industry Authority (SIA) registered door supervisor shall be employed at the premises from the end of framework hours to closing time.

The applicant, Dewan Ashrafi, was accompanied by legal representative Stewart Gibson, who summarised the application and responded to questions by providing the following information:

• The applicant intended to diversify the business to make it viable. The current Post Office offer would be supplemented by a café, including take away food, and an off licence.
• It was recognised that the premises was in a CIA, and there was a rebuttable presumption to refuse the application, however the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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. Consideration was also given to the information included in the Supplementary Agenda.

The Licensing Officer summarised the report and stated that one representation had been received opposing the application from the Highgate Society.

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

Francis Wilkinson, representing the Highgate Society summarised their objections to the application, as outlined in their written submission.

Responding to a question, Francis Wilkinson stated that the applicant had proposed to have a condition on the lease specifying that the Greenroom could only be used by theatre patrons during performances. However, this lease could subsequently be changed, and therefore, it was preferable if this condition was imposed on the premises licence instead. 

In response to points raised by the interested party, the Legal Adviser to the Panel clarified that the theatre’s status as an Asset of Community Value was not a consideration under the licensing regime and that the theatre was entirely separate to the premises licence that was being considered.

Representing the applicant, Alun Thomas summarised the application and responded to questions as follows:

·       Controlling the use of the proposed Greenroom bar was a management issue. The premises was currently well managed and did not experience problems with customers causing a disturbance.

·       It would be disproportionate to have a condition controlling who could have access to the bar because if a patron wanted to meet a friend in the Greenroom bar after a show this would be a breach of a licence condition, which is a criminal offence.

·       Security would not be required to manage access to the upstairs bar, the applicant deemed this entirely unnecessary.

·       The licensing objectives could continue to be upheld through robust management. Customers at the pub did not currently disturb performances at the theatre and this was not expected to change if an upstairs bar was in operation.

·       The upstairs bar would be more convenient for theatre patrons who currently had to go to the downstairs bar to purchase a drink.

·       Furthermore, the proposed Greenroom bar was part of the pub, not the theatre, so the pub would be prevented from using an area included in their lease if the condition was applied.

·       A letter had been sent to the Highgate Society outlining the position, but it was not included with the agenda pack.

·       It was not appropriate to discuss the lease during this Panel meeting, such discussions should take place between the proprietor and the tenants.

The interested party and the applicant’s representative 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 considered the comments from the interested party and the information provided by the applicant’s representative.

Panel Members considered the issues raised and agreed that  ...  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.

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 informed the panel that the Police Responsible Authority had agreed conditions with the applicant and had withdrawn their representation. Therefore, three relevant representations remained.

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

Caroline Hill, Kentish Town Road Action, also representing Kate Gemmel, of TRACT, summarised the objections to the application, as outlined in their written submissions.

Councillor Meric Apak, speaking as an interested party, summarised his objection to the application, as outlined in his written submission. Councillor Apak also declared for transparency that he was a Member of the Licensing Committee and Licensing Panel E but had not discussed the application with any Licensing Committee Member.

Responding to a question Councillor Apak stated that he had consulted with the community, and it was clear that residents did not think having a premises open beyond framework hours would be appropriate for the area and the few outlets in the area that did open beyond framework hours created disturbance to residents.

Responding to a point of clarification, Councillor Apak stated that he had asked a sample of residents who lived in the immediate vicinity of the premises and the main resident groups in the area.

The applicant Hafiz Farooq, represented by Saheeb Inayat, and supported by Rashad Jabar summarised the application and responded to questions as follows:

• The application was for late night refreshment so that food could be served to customers until 02:00hrs.
• The premises was takeaway only and had no seating available, so people came in ordered their food and left once it was ready. Free delivery was also offered to all customers, which aimed to encourage customers to order from home instead of coming into the premises.
• The applicant had been trading since August 2023, but had taken the business over from an associate who had operated the premises for about a year.
• The applicant had applied to open until 02:00hrs to cater for night shift workers, including staff at the nearby hospitals and it was a new business so needed to maximise income and diversify their offer.
• The premises offered an alternative to other late-night restaurants, away from busy areas such as Camden Town.
• The premises was next to a bus stop, where people often congregated and could be noisy, but this was not the responsibility of the licence holder. 

The interested parties and the applicant then made 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 considered the comments from the interested parties and the information provided by the applicant and the applicant’s representative.

The Panel noted that the premises was not situated in a CIA, and that the Police Responsible Authority had withdrawn their representations upon the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

There was none.