Agenda and minutes

Licensing Panel C - Thursday, 14th November, 2024 7.00 pm

Venue: Remote meeting via Microsoft Teams. This meeting can be watched live at www.camden.gov.uk/webcast. View directions

Contact: Vicky Wemyss-Cooke  Committee Services Manager

Items
No. Item

1.

Guidance on Remote Meetings held under the Licensing Act 2003 and Associated Regulations pdf icon PDF 155 KB

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED –

 

THAT the guidance be agreed.

 

2.

Apologies

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors De Ayala Parker and Kirk.  It was noted that Councillor Greenwood was substituting and that the Panel was quorate with two members present.

3.

Declarations by Members of Statutory Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Compulsory Registerable Non-Pecuniary Interests and Voluntary Registerable Non-Pecuniary Interests in Matters on this Agenda

Minutes:

There were no declarations.

4.

Announcements (if any)

Minutes:

Webcasting

 

The Chair announced that the meeting as being broadcast live to the internet and would be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available on request.  Those participating in the meeting were deemed to be consenting to being filmed.

5.

Notification of any Items of Business that the Chair Decides to take as Urgent

Minutes:

There was no notification.

6.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 119 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 10th October 2024.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED –

 

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on the 10th October 2024 be approved and signed as a correct record.

7.

Shreeji Local, 167 Malden Road, London NW5 4HT pdf icon PDF 278 KB

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

 

This is an application in respect of the above premises for a new premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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The Licensing Officer summarised the report and confirmed that the Public Health Responsible Authority had withdrawn its representation.

 

Oisin Daly, the applicant’s representative, confirmed that there had been no changes to the application since the publication of the agenda.

 

Hitharth Patel, an interested party, then summarised their representation, highlighting that they owned a nearby licensed premises and believed that there had been a recent increase in crime in the area, and that the hours that the applicant wished to sell alcohol for could present a threat to the local community and to school children passing by on their way to and from school.

 

Stephen R, representing Kate Ashley, an interested party, summarised Kate Ashley’s representation, highlighting their concerns about safety in the area and concerns about how well managed any new premises in the area would be.

 

In response to a question, Stephen R remarked that they knew the owners of the two existing licensed premises in the area, and knew them to be responsible licensees, but did not know the applicant for this licence.

 

In response to a question, Hitharth Patel remarked that the premises proposed to be open and selling alcohol when children were passing on their way to school which was a matter of concern, as was the potential impact of another premises on the crime rate in the area.

 

Oisin Daly presented the application and made the following key points:-

 

·         The applicant had experience of licensed premises and her husband had experience in the retail sector.  Both would be on site the majority of the time.

·         The application complied with Camden’s licensing policy and there would be measures such as Challenge 25, CCTV, regular staff training and restrictions on alcohol strength in place.

·         Whether there was a need for an additional licensed premises in an area was not a relevant consideration and there appeared to be a pattern to the representations that suggested they had been solicited by another premises to prevent competition.  None of the concerns raised were specific to this application.

·         The nearby premises was in fact licensed from 8am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 12 noon to 10.30pm Sunday, whether or not the licensee chose to open for those hours.  That premises also did not have all the conditions on their licence that one might expect to see.

·         None of the responsible authorities had any concerns about the application.

·         The crime statistics did not show a significant spike in crime and anti-social behaviour in the area.

·         If the Panel wished to impose a condition regarding training in relation to vulnerable people and women’s safety, this would be acceptable to the applicant.

 

In their closing remarks, Hitharth Patel remarked that they had not been involved in soliciting representations and had in fact only found out about this application from a customer.  They added that their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Any Other Business that the Chair Considers Urgent

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.