Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedure rules for remote meetings.

RESOLVED –

THAT the guidance on remote meetings be agreed.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Greenwood and Jenny Headlam-Wells.

Councillors Kirk and Miah were in attendance as substitutes.

It was noted that Cllr Jonathan Simpson, Chair of the Licensing Committee was in attendance as Ward Councillor for Agenda Item 7. Panel Members confirmed that no conversations had taken place with Councillor Simpson with the regard to the application.

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.

The meeting was notified that there would be an item of urgent business relating to Blue Garden, Basement and Ground Floor, 74 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AA.

REASON FOR URGENCY

An application for a summary review was received from the Metropolitan Police Responsible Authority (“the Police”) on 5th November 2024. Under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003 the Police can submit a summary review of a premises licence if they believe the premises is associated with serious crime or disorder or both. Within 48 hours of receiving the application, the Licensing Authority must consider whether to take interim steps on the premises licence, pending a full review hearing. Due to these short timescales this item has been put forward as urgent so as to comply with the Licensing Act 2003 and the regulations that accompany it.

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 25 July 2024 and 29 August 2024.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meetings held on 25 July 2024 and 29 August 2024.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meetings held on 25 July 2024 and 29 August 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 an application for a new premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Panel considered the late papers that had been submitted by the Applicant and Interested Parties and agreed to accept them.

The Licensing Officer introduced the application and informed the Panel of a correction to the report. Since the report was published it was identified that ten additional valid representations had been received before the deadline but had been omitted from the report in error. Therefore, the number of valid representations received was 208, 160 opposed to the application and 48 in support.

The Panel sought confirmation that all necessary procedural requirements had been met by the applicant. The Licensing Officer confirmed that site notices were displayed, and the application was advertised in a local newspaper and on the Council’s website, as required, and was deemed to have been properly advertised.

The applicant, represented by Philip Kolvin KC, reported that amendments had been made to the application, as set out in the supplementary agenda.

The interested parties, represented by Jon McLeod, Simon Burton, Rebecca Spark, and Councillor Jonathan Simpson, summarised their written submissions, at set out in the agenda.

The interested parties responded to questions setting out their views as follows:

·   A suite of conditions had been submitted for the applicant and panel to consider. The conditions had been drafted by local residents and were consistent with the premises being operated as a co-working space, therefore the applicant should be agreeable to all of them.

·   An ambition of the Town Hall conversion project was to provide a co-working space in the vacant areas of the building, not an extended members club. However, there was concern that the licensing process was being used to subvert this ambition and create an entertainment led space.

·   Local residents had observed that conditions were not being adhered to at the Camden Centre, which was also operated by the applicant, therefore there was no confidence that the Bidborough Works premises would be operated correctly.

·   For example, there was a condition that stipulated where taxi and Uber collection and drop off was allowed, however, drop off and pick up had taken place away from the designated area, outside the nearby residential building, causing nuisance to residents. 

·   Residents of a neighbouring property were also concerned about light pollution and noise pollution and would expect conditions to be granted to limit the impact of this, if the application was approved.

·   The terrace area on Bidbourgh Street was also of concern and the interested parties stated that this area should be tightly controlled with time restrictions and that alcohol consumption should not be permitted on the terraces.

Emillie Edberg (as the Applicant), Ewen Macgregor (Licensing Solicitor), Philip Kolvin (Kings Counsel), and Ned Crowe (Acoustic Consultant) were in attendance on behalf of the applicant.

Philip Kolvin provided an overview of the application and responded to questions as follows:

·   The application had included measures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Blue Garden, Basement and Ground Floor, 74 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AA

An application for a summary review was received from the Metropolitan Police Responsible Authority (“the Police”) on 5th November 2024.

Under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003 the Police can submit a summary review of a premises licence if they believe the premises is associated with serious crime or disorder or both. Within 48 hours of receiving the application, the Licensing Authority must consider whether to take interim steps on the premises licence, pending a full review hearing.

A request was received from the Metropolitan Police in advance of the meeting that the press and public be excluded from the meeting when this item was considered, as publicity in respect of it could disclose information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Members agreed to the request and passed the following resolution:

RESOLVED –

THAT the press and public be excluded from the proceedings of the Licensing Panel on 7 November 2024 during consideration of this item 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 11 would be likely to lead to the disclosure of information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime by virtue of Category 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Part II

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Supporting Communities regarding an application for a summary review of a premises licence under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Panel heard from the Metropolitan Police, the Applicant for the summary review, and from the Licence Holder and their representative. 

The Police and counsel to the Licence Holder made some closing remarks.

Deliberation and Reasons

Panel Members confirmed that they had been able to follow and understand the submissions and discussion in relation to the application.

Having heard from both parties, Members were of the view that it was in the public interest and would uphold the licensing objectives to suspend the premises licence.

Members sought clarification whether the suspension could be for 14 days, due to the financial pressure suspension would cause members of staff working at the premises in the lead up to the festive period. The Legal Adviser to the Panel clarified that the Panel were only able to suspend the licence for up to 28 days as this was the statutory timeframe in which a full review must be scheduled and heard, however the Panel’s concern was noted.

Part I

Members returned to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.