Agenda and minutes

To note the guidance on remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Matthew Kirk. Councillor Meric Apak was in attendance as a substitute Member.

For reasons of transparency, Members made the following declarations:

·         With respect to Item 6, Councillor Meric Apak declared that Kentish Town Stores was in his ward and that he had received an email regarding that application. He had not replied to that email or engaged in any discussion on the application.

·         With respect to Item 7, Councillor Jonathan Simpson declared that he had attended live events at the Kenwood Estate more than 10 years ago.

Members did not consider these prejudicial and so participated in the consideration of the items.

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.

Any Other Announcements

Broadcast of the meeting

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 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.

There were no notifications of urgent business.

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 regarding an application for a new premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and said that the application had been amended following discussion with the Police and Licensing Authority. Those Responsible Authorities had withdrawn their representations. The one remaining representation was from an Interested Party. He added that the premises was not located in either cumulative impact policy area.

The Interested Party Caroline Hill, the Chair of Kentish Town Road Action, addressed the Panel. She highlighted her concern that the hours applied for were beyond framework hours, particularly in the mornings. Kentish Town Road had problems with street drinking and related anti-social behaviour, and she feared that a new premises serving alcohol would worsen this situation.

The Applicant, Luci Noel, clarified that she only wished to apply for ‘on-sales’ of alcohol from 10am. However, she wished to apply for ‘off-sales’ from 7.30am on weekdays and 8.30am on weekends.

Ms Noel made the following points in her submission:

·         The premises was a mixed-use retail site;

·         The past two years had been very difficult for physical retail outlets and they wished to have a broad offer to potential customers;

·         It was not an alcohol-led premises;

·         Its food and drink offer was mainly that of a café and the premises would also be selling a range of artisan products from local producers – such as ceramics and honey;

·         The price point of the alcohol sold would be unlikely to attract problem drinkers;

·         She did not anticipate off-sales of alcohol being more than about 2% of revenue;

·         The premises aimed to operate sustainably and was aiming to become a London Living Wage employer;

·         She lived locally and so did not want to generate public nuisance in the area.

Members noted that a premises licence was ordinarily attached to the premises and expressed the concern that a future operator of the premises could operate it in a more alcohol-led manner and more like an off-licence. They asked Ms Noel if she would be willing to surrender the licence if the nature of the business changed. She said she would be.

A Member asked why the premises wished to make off-sales early in the morning.

Ms Noel said that it was easier for the operation of the shop if it could sell all its products during its opening hours. She said that there would be customers who would visit the shop prior to going to work and buy food and drink for that evening or for gifts. She wanted to have the option of selling them a bottle of wine as well as other products that they might want. Ms Noel added that supermarkets in the area were able to make off-sales of alcohol early in the morning and she wanted her premises to be treated consistently with them.

Following concluding statements from both parties, Members deliberated on the application.

Panel Decision and Reasons

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 regarding an application to vary a premises licence under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Licensing Officer introduced the item and stated that it was an application to vary the conditions of the existing premises licence. Conditions had been agreed with the Police and Environmental Health, and these Responsible Authorities had withdrawn their representations.

Jeremy Phillips QC, the Applicant’s Representative, informed the meeting that the conditions being offered by the Applicant were now as on pages 5 to 23 of the supplementary agenda.

Charles Streeten addressed the Panel on behalf of the Interested Party, the Heath and Hampstead Society.

Mr Streeten made a number of points in his submission, including:

·         The conditions agreed in 2006 were reasonable as they had been upheld by a decision of the magistrates’ courts;

·         The proposed amendments to the conditions by the Applicant would remove oversight from events with fewer than 10,000 people;

·         The lack of event management plans for events with fewer than 10,000 could cause public nuisance and other problems;

·         The application should have been treated as a new application rather than a variation as it would cover a broader area than he believed the existing licence covered;

·         It was important that the site be returned to its previous state promptly after each event – and so the Interested Party wanted that clearly conditioned with a 5-day timescale.

Mr Phillips made a number of points in his submission, including:

·         The premises had £3m annual running costs and there was a need to cover much of this cost from commercial activities, given the cuts in government grant available to English Heritage.

·         The Applicant was a conservation charity and so did not intend to do anything which would damage the site or reduce its public amenity.

·         The Applicant aimed to amend the licence to ensure that it was comprehensive and covered all activities that might be held on the site;

·         They had agreed conditions with the Police;

·         They had agreed conditions with the Environmental Health Responsible Authority;

·         The Applicant was moving away from holding large summer music concerts in its venues;

·         The proposed new wording for what was Condition 23 on the old licence allowed the Local Authority to ask for event management plans for “non-major” events.

Members asked questions of Mr Phillips and of Kingston Myles (the Head of Commercial Development, English Heritage).

They asked the Applicant of their views regarding the proposed condition mandating that structures, equipment and other paraphernalia installed in connection with an event be removed within five days.

Mr Myles said that it would depend on the nature of an event and on how the subcontractors involved operated. Any ‘tidy up’ would need to be done carefully to avoid damaging the site. Dismantling the Christmas Light Trail had taken 12 days to do carefully and safely.

Members queried whether this licence would cover a broader area than the existing licence did. Mr Phillips said that he  ...  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 28^th July 2022  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).