Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Steve Adams. Councillor Jonathan Simpson was in attendance as substitute.

There were no such 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.

Supplementary Agenda

A supplementary agenda was published containing information relating to Agenda Item 7, including an amended list of conditions for the application in respect of SMSH Burger.

Agenda Item 8 Resolved

The application listed under Agenda Item 8, Taco Bell, was resolved ahead of the meeting and would therefore not be considered by the Panel.

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 for a variation to a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Licensing Officer outlined the report and advised that the applicant sought to vary the licence to include the garden to the rear of the premises in the area in which licensable activity could be undertaken. 

The Licensing Officer advised that four representations had been received in objection to the application, one from the Environmental Health Responsible Authority and three from local residents. Since the publication of the report two of the representations submitted by local residents had been withdrawn and two representations remained. 

The applicant advised there were no amendments to the application.

Lee Perella, on behalf of the Environmental Health Responsible Authority outlined their representation as set out in their written submissions and responded to questions as follows:

·       The garden, whilst not large, was significantly bigger than those of nearby premises, increasing the potential for disturbance. Due to the limited distance between properties, mitigating noise and visual impact was challenging.

·       Therefore, the Panel were advised to consider a reasonable closing time for the outdoor area, balancing business needs with the protection of local residents. A closing time of 20:00 had been proposed by the Environmental Health Service, which was deemed to be a reasonable balance.

·       Smoking in the garden area was acknowledged as a potential nuisance to neighbours, and a designated smoking area was proposed at the front of the premises on Eversholt Street to mitigate this.

Gail McKenna, interested party, outlined their objections as stated in their written submission and provided a statement from neighbouring residents which outlined concerns with the application and expressed support of Gail McKenna’s representation. 

The applicant, represented by Birendra Manandhar and Suraj Manandhar, summarised the application and responded to questions by setting out their views as follows:

·       As there had been objections to the application the applicant had made efforts to engage with residents to discuss concerns and had invited one of the objectors to the premises for a discussion. Following this the objector had withdrawn their representation.

·       Another objector had withdrawn their representation before the meeting, and it was believed that this objection had been submitted in error or because of a misunderstanding.

• Therefore, there was concern about the legitimacy of some objections, and it was suggested that at least one had been submitted fraudulently.
• The Licensing Officer had mentioned four representations when the applicant had only been aware of three.
• The premises was one of the only Nepalese restaurants in the area, and it was frustrating the application was facing challenges, despite Camden’s emphasis on diversity.
• The business should not be penalised for attempting to operate in line with Camden’s nighttime economy strategy.
• The premises wanted to contribute positively to the Borough and support the local economy by creating job opportunities for residents.
• The applicant questions the legitimacy of some of the concerns raised by the interested party in their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 the application was for late night refreshment and that the premises was located in the Seven Dials Cumulative Impact Policy Area (CIA).

The Licencing Officer reported that late night refreshment had initially been applied for until 01:00 every day however, late night refreshment had been removed from the application on Sundays.

The Licensing Officer advised that four representations had been received in objection to the application, one from the Environmental Health Responsible Authority and three from local residents.

The applicant advised that other than removing Sunday from the scope of the licence, there were no further amendments to the application.

The Interested Parties, David Kaner (Covent Garden Community Association) and Sarah Herriot, outlined their objections as stated in their written submissions.

David Kaner responded to questions by providing the following information:

·       The applicant was asked about a proposed door condition, and indicated they might accept it if all objections were withdrawn, but as objections remained, this had not been agreed. 

·       The applicant was informed that a condition regarding removal of external seating and the ledge would be requested, but this was only communicated on the morning of the meeting, so they had not yet provided a formal response.

·       A noise emanation condition had not been previously mentioned to the applicant, but such a condition was standard for premises operating late at night to mitigate noise from inside or from associated equipment.

·       It was noted that if the premises’ extraction system had gone through the planning process, a noise condition would likely have been applied, but as it had not been subject to planning, adding such a condition was considered appropriate to address noise impact.

The applicant summarised the application and responded to questions by providing the following information:

·       The application was for a new premises licence for late-night refreshment only, with no alcohol sales.

·       The premises operated as a burger restaurant and takeaway.

·       The executive chef had extensive culinary experience, and the other owners had over 20 years’ experience in operating a licenced premises so were familiar with licensing responsibilities.

·       The business had been trading under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) until 02:00 on certain days, without objections from responsible authorities or reports of anti-social behaviour.

·       To reassure the local community, the applicant had voluntarily offered several conditions and had agreed to those proposed by the Covent Garden Community Association.

·       The applicant stated that the premises had not contributed to crime or disorder and had a strong record of compliance since opening in May the previous year.

·       The landlord had confirmed that the vent above the door was an intake vent, not an extract vent.

·       The applicant had agreed to conditions on odour and noise, despite these being planning considerations, and stated that changes made had eliminated any disturbance.

·       The submitted  ...  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.

This application was resolved ahead of the meeting and was therefore not considered by the Panel.

There was none.