Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be agreed.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Mason.

It was noted that the meeting was quorate with 2 members present.

Councillor Cotton declared that in relation to item 8 (HHE Camden Unit 87-88 and Former Horse Hospital, The Stables Market, Chalk Farm Road NW1 8AH) was in the ward (Camden Town with Primrose Hill) he represented but he had not been involved in any discussion with the applicants or interested parties about the application.

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.

The Panel noted that additional documents in respect of item 7 (The Goodness Tap, 20 Heath Street, London NW3 6TE) and had been published in supplementary agendas 1 and 2 on 6^th and 7^th December 2021. Respectively. The papers were received by the required deadline.

Supplementary agenda 1 included:

·       an additional representation from Marc Hutchinson (Chair Heath and Hampstead Society) that was not included in the main agenda- pages 3-4 Supplementary Agenda 1

·       Additional information provided by David Milne – Church Row pages 5-211

·       Additional representation provided by the applicant Alex Costa pages 212-238

Supplementary agenda 2 included

·       Information sent in by the applicant’s representative – setting out the list of conditions agreed between the applicant and the Police pages 3-6

There was no such business.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5^th October 2021.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 5^th October 2021 be approved 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 an application for a new premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Chair informed those present that additional information had been received from the applicant earlier in the day, but this had not been included in the papers and had not been considered by the Panel. He suggested that with the agreement of all parties this should be summarised in the applicant’s representation.

The Licensing Officer provided the Panel with a summary of the application.

Robert Sutherland, solicitor for the applicant Angelo Sofocieous, informed the Panel that he wanted to amend the hours of the application to be in line with Camden framework hours, the only change would be:

‘On Sales’ Sunday 11.00 until 22.30 rather than the hours provided in the application 11.00 until 23.00. On Sales Monday to Saturday were in line with framework hours.

Marcus Lavell Barrister speaking on behalf of Deborah Davies, David Milne Church Row Association and several other interested parties, summarised the main points of the interested parties’ submissions as follows:

·       Although Licensing and Planning were separate regimes with separate requirements, the applicant had taken advantage of the introduction of flexible Class E to change a former retail unit on a High Street which was now being used as an A4 premises under planning.

·       This would have involved a lengthy process and consideration by the Planning Department. In this situation, the License would not simply carry on with licensable activity, it would effectively be the authorisation that allowed A1 retail premises, with anticipated hours of use that related to retail use on the high street to allow for trade to 11pm in the night with dispersal moving on till midnight with the use of the license.

·       The high street was a mix of commercial and residential premises, while the surrounding areas were purely residential. The commercial premises were made up of entirely class A1 use with activity in these premises expected to end around 6pm.Granting this application would mark a significant change with activity in the area continuing to 11pm at night causing significant nuisance to residents.

·       The Police and other parties supporting the application were given the erroneous impression that this was a restaurant, and this had influenced their decision making and conditions that interested parties felt were inappropriate.

·       This, however, was not an application for a restaurant but for a sit-down bar. This was a concern for residents as it appeared to be an application that would permit a bar with no limit on capacity except that people must be seated without any further conditions.

·       This bar would not be appropriate for this location with people dispersing up till midnight creating great deals of noise nuisance.

·       If this were indeed a restaurant then a restaurant condition should be imposed on this application. The few restaurants in this area had restaurant conditions.

·       The local area was quiet and residential.

·       The applicant had not tried  ...  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.

The Licensing Officer reported that the application was for

Additional Licensable Activity

Supply of Alcohol (For consumption off the premises)

10:00 – 21:00 Monday to Saturday

12:00 – 21:00 Sunday

and the applicant had agreed conditions with the Police who had subsequently withdrawn their representation.

Andrew Wood solicitor for the applicant, confirmed that there were no further amendments to the application.

Dennis Viechweg of the Licensing Authority summarised his written submission and, in response to a question, confirmed that his only objection to the application was that the premises was situated in the Cumulative Impact Policy Area where a rebuttable presumption to refuse applications for all new or variation applications applied.

Pat Thomas, an interested party, then summarised her written submission and that of Brenda Gardner (Castlehaven Community Association) and Kathryn Gemmell of Tenants and Residents Associations Camden Town, confirming that they remained opposed to the application as it was in the CIPA and the area was rapidly returning to an area of significant anti-social behaviour with stabbings and public nuisance. Noting that the price of alcohol did not significantly deter public nuisance or anti-social behaviour.

Andrew Wood then summarised the application and gave answers to questions as follows: -

·       There had been an agreement with the Police that there would be no sales of off sales from the outside area, customers would have to go into the building to purchase the alcohol.

·       The premises management would liaise with security and walk around the Stables Market to prevent alcohol from being consumed in the street where possible.

·       Based on the price points of what customers were buying it was unlikely that customers would drink this alcohol in the street.

·       The wine shop would be situated in Unit 87 and 88 of the Farrier, forming part of the back bar.

·       The Farrier was a pub that had a restaurant area. There was a condition which required that in a specific area, customers had to be seated and have a table meal. That did not apply to the whole of the Farrier, however in the dining area customers were required to take a table meal.

·       People were able to purchase a drink and sit in the outside area. The part that served the outside area would not be used for off sales.

·       The 3 different sites had varying capacities- the fire capacity for the Horse Hospital was 700, however because it would not be used as a nightclub as it once was- it was expected that the capacity would be 350 people in this area, subject to the Fire Brigades assessment. The Farrier had a fire capacity of 200, in the Venue in the restaurant seating for 60, in the pub seating for 40 and the smoking area seating capacity for 60. Therefore, the capacity was 150.

Mr Viechweg then summed up his submission.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

There was none.