Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be noted.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Nina De Ayala Paker. The meeting was quorate with two Members present to consider Item 7.

Councillor De Ayala Parker did not take part in the consideration of Item 7, but did take part in the consideration of Items 8 and 9 as she was present for the whole of those items.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

It was announced that supplementary papers had been provided for Item 7 (Farmer J). Members agreed to accept these.

There were no notifications of items of urgent business.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2024.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd May 2024.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd May 2024 be approved and signed as a correct 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 the application for a new premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and clarified that the Police and Licensing Responsible Authorities had withdrawn their representations following negotiations with the Applicant. One of the Interested Parties had also withdrawn his representation the previous day. The premises was not located in a cumulative impact Special Policy Area.

The Applicant’s Representative, David Inzani, confirmed that there were no further amendments to the application beyond those in the supplementary agenda.

An Interested Party, Sushil Vashisht, addressed the Panel. He expressed his concerns about excessive noise and congestion in the area being worsened by a new licensed premises and had concerns about littering by the public.

The Applicant’s Representative, Mr Inzani, said that the premises had a limited alcohol offer, was at the “high end” of the market and that the sale of food would be the primary purpose of the business. He said the premises was thus unlikely to be one which would contribute to public nuisance or crime and disorder.

Mr Inzani added that the operators were experienced individuals and that there had been a willingness on their part to reduce hours as part of negotiations with Responsible Authorities and residents. 

He emphasised that the Applicant was willing to offer conditions that there be no vertical drinking and no external seating area with tables and chairs. Mr Inzani said that staff would carry out regular checks to make sure that the public highway was kept clear.

Members asked if there would be deliveries made from the premises to customers by firms such as Deliveroo. Mr Inzani said that his clients might offer this service for food deliveries but they would not deliver alcohol by this means.

Members queried whether the Applicant would be willing to cease serving alcohol prior to the closure of the premises, so that patrons would have ‘drinking-up time’. They said that they would be willing to agree to this.

Members asked if the premises would introduce the ‘Ask for Angela’ scheme to improve women’s safety in the night-time economy. They agreed to this.

Following concluding remarks from both Parties, the Panel then commenced deliberation.

Panel Decision and Reasons

The Panel welcomed the openness of the Applicant to negotiation with other Parties. They noted that the premises would be a food-led establishment and noted that its closing time was 9pm, earlier than framework hours.

They were of the view that the terminal hour for on-sales should be 8.40pm on Mondays to Saturdays and 6.40pm on Sundays to enable customers to have a 20-minute ‘drinking-up time’ before closing time. The Panel also agreed to condition that the premises participate in the ‘Ask for Angela’ scheme.

They noted that the earlier closing time meant that offered condition 14 saying that there be no “off-sales” after 2300 was now not relevant and could be removed.

They considered imposing a condition  ...  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 premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was for a premises in the Camden Town Cumulative Impact Special Policy Area. Representations had been received from a Responsible Authority, from a residents’ association and local residents.

The Applicant’s Representative, Graham Hopkins, clarified that the application was for ‘off-sales’ only. They were also prepared to offer a condition that alcohol take up no more than 20% of the display area in the shop.

The representative of the Licensing Authority Responsible Authority, Steven Dormer, said that the Authority was making a representation as there was a rebuttable presumption to refuse new and variation applications in a cumulative impact Special Policy Area.

An Interested Party, Kate Gemmell from TRACT (Tenants and Residents’ Associations of Camden Town), made the following points in her submission:

·       A new premises in the area would increase cumulative impact, in terms of noise, anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder.

·       There were a number of open spaces and public areas nearby where street drinkers could congregate.

·       Other retailers had 10% of display space being alcohol, so the proposed 20% was excessive.

A Member asked whether the application being only for framework hours allayed Ms Gemmel’s concerns. She said it did not; as crime, disorder and public nuisance occurred in the area during framework hours and was not confined to the time after 11pm.

The Applicant’s Representative addressed the Panel and made the following points in his submission:

·       The Applicant was an experienced operator and owned 13 off-licences. Some others were also located in cumulative impact areas.

·       The Police had not lodged an objection, and the Panel should give weight to this as they were the main body charged with raising crime and disorder concerns.

·       The premises did not intend to serve street drinkers or to have that much passing trade, but would mainly be for local residents.

·       They would display signage explaining the Public Space Protection Order in place that prevented street drinking.

·       There would be lockable chilled cabinets where alcohol would be stored, and so they could be easily locked away when framework hours ended.

·       No unaccompanied children would be permitted in the premises after 9pm.

Members asked whether the premises would be willing to sign up to the Council’s Women’s Safety Principles and the Mayor of London’s Women’s Night Safety Charter.  The Applicant said that their staff would receive training on Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement (WAVE) and they would consider signing up to the charter.

Panel Decision and Reasons

After having heard closing remarks from all Parties, Members commenced deliberations.

Members welcomed the offer of limiting 20% of display space to alcohol. They also welcomed the recognition from the Applicant of the importance of the Council’s Women’s Safety principles and Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement. They also noted the premises would not be selling strong beer or cider in excess  ...  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 introduced the report and clarified that the application was for ‘on’ and ‘off’ sales of alcohol. There was no application being made for a licence for recorded music. A noise report had been provided by the Applicant and was included in the papers.

The Applicant’s Representative, Nick Semper, clarified that the background music that they might have on in the premises would not be such that would require licensing consent. He added that the Applicant was open to arranging WAVE (welfare and vulnerability engagement) training for its staff and incorporating the Council’s women’s safety principles in its operation.

An Interested Party, Paul Oliff, addressed the Panel and spoke to the representations that residents had made. Key points in his presentation were:

·       The block of flats they lived in shared a party wall with Humdingers’ premises.

·       An alleyway which was the only way to access their flat had been used as a dumping ground for rubbish by the operators of the premises.

·       There had been Instagram posts mocking residents and the Council when the request for sound-proofing was made at a previous licensing panel.

·       There had been aggressive behaviour by employees of the premises and their contractors towards residents.

·       The Applicant had been disingenuous in their communications with residents and the Council.

Members queried how long the premises had been open. Mr Oliff said it had been open for about 18 months, and he added that residents did not have concerns of a similar nature about the other commercial properties operating in the area.

Mr Semper presented the Applicant’s case and made the following points:

·       The premises was a coffee bar and restaurant that wanted to expand its offer to include alcohol. It would not be an alcohol-led premises.

·       The capacity of the premises was 50, so it would be a small venue.

·       A full professional noise survey had been carried out, which demonstrated that the premises had taken measures to stop the egress of noise.

·       A licensing officer had visited the premises had been satisfied by what he saw.

·       There had been no Police or Environmental Health representations, indicating the premises was not a cause of crime and disorder or public nuisance concerns.

·       He clarified that the smoking area would be on the bench outside and that smoking would not be allowed in the shared alley.

·       With regard to the allegations of aggressive and hostile behaviour, he said that he contested what Mr Oliff had said, and that various allegations were under police investigation and so sub judice.

Members asked the Applicant, if they were committed to being good operators, how there had been such a deterioration in relations between them and some residents. The Applicant, Robert Hunninger, said that some residents had been hostile to the business from the beginning as they had not wanted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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 5^th 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).