Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.  (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear.  New items will be dealt with at item 7 below).

There was no urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at he commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest in relation to items on the agenda.

The Chair will explain the procedure that the Committee will follow for the hearing considered under the Gambling Act 2005 or the Licensing Act 2003.  A copy of the procedure is attached.

The Committee noted the summary of procedure.

To consider the application for a variation of a premises licence at the above premises.

Dale Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a variation of a premises licence seeking to extend the supply of alcohol and to provide regulated entertainment and the facility for dancing. 

The Committee noted the Police Representation, including:

• The Applicants’ premises in neighbouring Borough, Barnet, had been closed due to previous incidents of public nuisance.
• The hours applied for were excessive.

Interested parties questioned the Police Representative and the Committee noted the following:

• That there was no real geographical boundary outside of the premises within which premises managers were responsible for preventing public disorder.  It was also not possible to prove that nuisance came from patrons from particular premises.
• In response to comments that cars parked outside the premises would be dangerous and would obstruct emergency vehicles, the Police Representative advised that there was no evidence that any accidents had occurred as a result and the road was not particularly narrow, however, practice for emergency vehicles would be to avoid such roads.
• The CCTV system in the premises was adequate.

Clerk’s note: The Police Representative left the meeting at this point.

The Committee noted the representation from the Noise Team, namely that following discussions the Applicant had agree to some of the conditions set out on Pages 46-48 of the agenda pack, detailed in the resolution below.

The Committee noted the following comments made by interested parties in objection to the Application:

• Patrons leaving the premises would cause noise nuisance and public disorder. 
• There was a risk to public security in an otherwise safe neighbourhood as alcohol triggered violence and vandalism.
• The business would not benefit the local community; an area populated with children and families.
• The limit of 15 people using the outside smoking area would be difficult to enforce.

Councillor Aitken asked for it to be recorded that he was not given the opportunity to speak, due to an advance request form not being provided.

The Committee noted the Legal Officer’s comments emphasising that the premises already had a license to operate and that the Application in questions was to vary the existing license.

The Committee noted the representation made by the Applicants’ representative, Ms Hill, and answers to the Committee’s questions, including:

• The 11 visits to the Applicants’ other premises by the Police had been on one night and were in relation to a particular promoter whose group had been the cause of the problems.  There had been no recorded incidents since.
• The premises would not be operating as a night-club. Although there would be a DJ from Thursday to Saturday, the premises would not include a dance-floor.
• CCTV footage would be retained for 28 days and the recorded area would not intrude on residential areas.
• Door supervision would be in place as well as supervision in the smoking area.  There would, however, be no music outside in the smoking area and shisha lounge (a “chill-out” area where patrons could smoke flavoured tobacco).
• The Applicants would set a noise limit if required.
• Arrangements had been made so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider any new items admitted under item 2 above.

There were no such items.