Issue - meetings

To consider the application by Jamaica Village Limited to allow provision of regulated entertainment and supply of alcohol at an event on 3^rd-12^th August 2012.

In presenting the outline of how the hearing would run, it was reported under the late documents item that there were a number of updated conditions which it was proposed would replace some of those set out in the agenda pack. On taking advice from Mr Michael, the Legal Officer, the Committee agreed to receive this late list of conditions after the responsible authorities had had the opportunity to make their representations on the conditions proposed.

The Licensing Officer, Dale Barrett, presented the report on an application for a new premises licence for Jamaica Village 2012, Finsbury Park, 3 – 12 August 2012 and the representations received in respect of this application from the responsible authorities and interested parties. The Committee was advised that Cllr Wilson would be speaking at the hearing on behalf of Mrs Edis, a Ward resident who had made a written representation as part of the consultation process.

Derek Pearce, Enforcement Response, addressed the Committee regarding the representation made by the Enforcement Response Team in relation to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. It was felt that a 10-day event, running from 11am to 11pm had the potential to cause disturbance to local residents, and a number of conditions had therefore been proposed, as set out in the agenda pack, in order to address the risk of public nuisance. Mr Pearce advised that the proposed conditions had been discussed with the applicant, but not all had been agreed. It was reported that the applicant had not agreed to the cessation of regulated entertainment at 2230 as requested by Enforcement Response, and it was suggested that, were the Committee minded to grant regulated entertainment until 2300 as requested, the nature of regulated entertainment permitted after 2230 be restricted. A cessation of regulated entertainment at 2230 had been requested in order to establish a ‘winding down’ period. Proposed conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, as set out in the representation on pages 174-176 of the agenda pack, had been agreed with the applicant, but conditions 3, 4 and 8 had not, and the Committee was advised that the applicant would address them on these specific points. Mr Pearce advised that this was a unique event in the area, and there was therefore no local experience of an event lasting for a period of 10 days. It was felt best to err on the side of caution, and a reduction in permitted noise levels for days 6 – 10 of the event had been proposed on the basis of the Code of Practice, which identified that residents were likely to be more greatly affected by noise levels when an event had been going on for 3 consecutive days. In addition to any conditions attached, Mr Pearce advised the Committee that the Enforcement Response team retained all of their powers in dealing with any identified statutory noise nuisance.

In response to questions from the Committee regarding the nature of complaints in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23