Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED

THAT the guidance be noted.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Mason and it was confirmed that the meeting was quorate with two Panel members present.

No declarations were made

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.”

The Chair announced 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.”

There was no such 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 for a new premises licence within the Seven Dials Cumulative Impact Policy Area. The application was summarised by the Licensing Officer.

The agent Bobby Nakum representing the applicant, confirmed that the hours applied for in the application had been amended to the following:

Supply of Alcohol (For consumption off the premises)

Monday to Saturday 08:00 until 23:00   

Sunday 10:00 to 22:30

Opening Hours

Monday to Saturday 08:00 until 23:00     

Sunday 10:00 to 22:30 

The applicant had also agreed to the conditions proposed by the Police Responsible Authority.  

Julia Peterson on behalf of the Licensing Responsible Authority summarised their written representation. The premises was within the Seven Dials Cumulative Impact Policy Area where there was a presumption to refuse all new applications and this application should be refused in its entirety.   

PC Christopher Malone, Metropolitan Police, Police Responsible Authority

summarised his written representation that included concerns that a small shop, with late opening hours would encourage more people to remain in the area and would make more alcohol available. This would add to the consumption of alcohol in the area, and the serious problems associated with alcohol and intoxication.  

In response to questions:

·       PC Malone confirmed that the times stated in his written representations on Friday , Saturday and Bank Holidays and Sundays of 10:00 to 18:00 were because of the problems and anti-social behaviour on the streets in the area

·       Bobby Nakum confirmed that the plan on page 74 of the agenda should not have been included in the application  

Interested parties

·       There were no Interested Parties present at the meeting, but their written representations had been included in the report and given due consideration by the Panel.  

Bobby Nakum representing the applicant provided an outline of the application that included:

·       This was a small premises in a Cumulative Impact Policy Area and that it would not impact on the area

·       76% of businesses near the premises that had been granted licences were white owned in comparison to those owned by other ethnicities. It was his view that this was a breach of the equalities act where minorities were treated less favourably

·       The owner of the premises would not serve alcohol to anyone who was intoxicated or to drug dealers

·       The applicant was happy to accept the Police Responsible Authority conditions and had agreed to amend the application

·       There would be no large deliveries of alcohol, this was a small premises and the sale of alcohol was ancillary to the sale of other goods but would help with the viability of the business. Alcohol would be approximately 20% of sales

·       The applicant would accept shelves with shutters to store the alcohol   

·       11pm was within the framework hours

 Asked by the Panel about an accurate layout of the premises, no clarification could be provided. Mr Nakum said that the plan shown on page 74 of the agenda was incorrect and did not form part of the application. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

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. The report was summarised by the Licensing Officer, who informed the Panel that, the Police Responsibility Authority and Licensing Responsible Authority had withdrawn their representations on the basis that their conditions had been agreed by the applicant. 

The applicant Richard Bottomley confirmed that they had agreed to the   conditions from the Licensing Responsible Authority and the Police Responsible Authority as set out on pages 131-132 of the agenda. The applicant also stated that he believed the café would not generate significant noise, but they were happy to and discuss further noise reduction measures.  

The Interested Parties attending the meeting were Councillor Stephen Stark, a local ward Councillor and Dr Geraldine Bloustein, a local resident.

Councillor Stephen Stark described Hampstead as a quiet place. He wanted the premises to carry out measures to reduce noise before they opened for business. He also requested that any tables and chairs outside the premises should not be there too early, to avoid creating additional noise early in the morning.    

Dr Geraldine Bloustein, expressed her concerns about public nuisance caused by alcohol and noise, that would disturb local families and children. She was concerned that this was yet another premises in the area selling alcohol from early in the morning until late at night . Intoxicated people were already causing problems in the area and this premises would add to the issue. The applicant had described the café as family friendly but the layout plans and happy hour made the premises look a wine bar. Local residents were also concerned about the noise that would be generated by people sitting outside the café and the litter caused by smokers.

Other interested parties had not been able to join the meeting, but the Chair confirmed that the Panel had read all the representations submitted in response to the application.  

The applicant Richard Bottomley attending with Konstantin Rzhebaev and  

Guru Bahl summarised the application as follows:

·       Café Brera was a café not a bar. There were six premises of the same name that had been established over the last 30 years. They provided quality produce in an atmosphere that prided itself on the quality of their service. As a business they did not have a record of complaints 

·       40% of sales at the café would be  food, 60% drinks and 10% of the drink sales would be alcohol. The alcohol would primarily be for customers who wanted a glass of sparkling wine

·       The food was cooked off site. On site staff would consist of 6-10 people including 3 trained barista, 2 chefs for food preparation and front of house staff 

·       It was not a late-night alcohol led premises and the applicant would agree to alcohol only being sold after midday.  There would be no vertical drinking, the focus of the business model was coffee and cake  

·       The applicant would be happy to meet with Councillor Stark to discuss sound proofing. The windows to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities

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 that was summarised by the Licensing Officer.

Mr Rob Edge of Licensing Leader Ltd, the agent representing the applicant Mr Giuseppe Miggiano informed the Panel that the Sunday hours for the sale of alcohol had been reduced to 22:30 to bring them within framework hours.

Ms Henrietta Oxlade an Interested Party (not attending the meeting) opposing the application, was represented by Mr Ben Colenutt of Jamieson Alexander Legal. Mr Colenutt was present and attending with George Chambi.

Mr Colenutt made the following points about the application:

·       The closing times of 23:30 during the week and 3am closing on New Year’s Eve to New Year’s Day that had been applied for were very late hours

·       That there were only 6 tables and that the premises was effectively a bar, with limited space between tables that could lead to anti-social behaviour

·       The applicant had a bar/restaurant premises a few doors away and this application was described as a delicatessen but would also be a bar 

·       The CCTV cameras for these premises were directed at residential properties and had caused problems in the past. Could  it be conditioned that the cameras should not point at the residential properties?

·       Could the Panel also reduce the on sales of alcohol to 8pm Monday to Sunday and refuse the off sales of alcohol on all days? 

Bruce Saunders, an Interested Party supporting the application summarised his written representation with the following points:

·       There had been many fast-food premises in the area and it had been transformative to have these premises available in the past eighteen months

·       Casa Tua had provided local residents with a welcoming shining contrast to fast food with a delicatessen

·       The premises was opposite a new pub and located in an area that was  already busy with traffic and noise   

·       The premises were well run with responsible owners   

The applicant Mr Giuseppe Miggiano was in attendance and was represented by Mr Edge of Licensing Leader Ltd, who provide the following summary of the application:

·       The applicant had tried to mediate with the Interested Parties opposing the application but they had been unable to come to an agreement on matters

·       The applicant already owned a restaurant close to the premises, that had opened in 2013 and was popular with local residents. He also  owned another restaurant called Casa Tua in Kings Cross, that had opened in 2015

·       The applicant had moved to London fifteen years ago, was passionate about hospitality and had made a significant investment of £150k in the refurbishment of this premises to ensure that it was special and successful

·       The premises had the support of local residents’ groups and was well known for its décor and fine wine 

·       The refurbishment had transformed the premises and the applicant hoped to open more premises in the future with job opportunities for local people

·       The application had been taken very seriously and the business model included authentic Italian artisanal produce from Puglia  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

There was no urgent business.