Agenda and draft minutes

Licensing Sub-Committee - Friday, 25th January, 2013 10.00 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Hammersmith Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Owen Rees  (Tel: 020 8753 2088)

Items
No. Item

25 January 2013- The Larrik Decision Letter pdf icon PDF 1 MB

25 January 2013- Nomad Decision Letter pdf icon PDF 585 KB

25 January 2013- Punto Decision Letter pdf icon PDF 465 KB

1.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 75 KB

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chairman to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 and 30 November 2012 and 11 and 13 December 2012.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 and 30 November and 11 and 13 December 2012 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

 

2.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were none.

3.

Declarations of Interest

 

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

 

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

 

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

 

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

4.

Larrik Inn, 425 New King's Road, London, SW6 4RN (Application Number:2012/02036/LAPRR ) pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received and considered an application for a review of the licence at the Larrik Inn, 425 New King’s Road, London, SW6 4RN.

 

Main Points Of Evidence

 

Licensing Officer

 

Lisa White, Licensing Officer, said that the premises had agreed the alterations to conditions requested by the Police and by the Environmental Protection service.

 

Police Constable Michael Payne, Borough Licensing Team, said that he had agreed one amendment to the conditions applied for. This was in relation to condition 10, with the condition amended to state that a personal licence holder should be “on duty”, and that this condition should only come into effect after 3 months.

 

Councillor Cartwright asked what the definition of “on duty” was. PC Payne said that it meant that a personal licence holder was working at the premises during the time it was open, but could be away for a short time: fifteen minutes was given as an example. Mike Gore, representing the Premises Licence Holder, said that the current position was that only the DPS held a personal licence, though two other staff members were undergoing training and had applied. He said that the premises understood “on duty” to mean working at the premises on the day in question, not on call in case of emergency. However, given the time it could take for a licence to be awarded, the premises had requested a period of grace before bringing this requirement into action.

 

Dom Stagg, Environmental Protection, said that there was one slight amendment agreed to the conditions proposed in the agenda pack. He said that he had agreed to add “after 21:00 hours or during regulated entertainment” to the condition, reflecting that the premises may want the door open during quiet periods on hot days.

 

The Chairman and Councillor Crofts asked about football matches and whether these would be shown in the garden. Mr Stagg said that there were no complaints about football at the premises and that the conditions proposed were largely pragmatic. Reuben Van Der Sluys, Manager and DPS, said that the outdoor television speakers did not have their own speaker system.

 

The Chairman said that, in light of the agreement between the parties, the Sub-Committee did not intend to retire.

 

RESOLVED THAT

The application for review be agreed, with 6 conditions removed, and the conditions proposed by the Police and Environmental Protection, subject to the amendments discussed, imposed.

 

Full reasons for decision are contained in the decision letter which accompanies these minutes.

 

5.

Nomad Café, 2B Thorpebank Road, London, W12 0PQ (Application Number: 2012/01701/LAPR) pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received and considered an application for a new premises licence at Nomad Café, 2B Thorpebank Road, London, W12 0PQ.

 

Main Points Of Evidence

 

Licensing Officer

 

Adrian Overton, Licensing Officer, introduced the application. He said that the Police and Environmental Protection had made representations to the application, but that the applicant had accepted the conditions proposed by both parties. As a result, the Police and Environmental Protection had withdrawn their representations. Four other parties had objected to the application, with one of the  parties now withdrawing their representation, though stating that the level of noise was still a concern..

 

The Chairman asked if the premises had previously held a licence. Mr Overton said that it had not.

 

The Chairman asked about the way in which the premises had been advertised. Mr Overton said that there were concerns regarding the advertising of the application and as a result, the 28 day consultation period was extended.  He is satisfied that the amended site adverts were displayed correctly, during the extended consultation period.

 

The Chairman asked about the garden space. Mr Overton said that the space was at the front of the premises surrounded by a wall and adjacent to the pavement, and the café was entered through it.

 

The Chairman noted the premises’ relative proximity to the Queens Park Rangers Football Stadium Loftus Road, and the lack of standard match day conditions in the operating schedule. Mr Overton said that no match day conditions had been suggested or agreed.

 

Councillor Cartwright said that the operating schedule seemed thin, and expressed concern that the premises might attract away football fans. He noted the requirement for alcohol to be served with food, but recalled that this had been the subject of abuse at other licensed premises

 

Robert Mulholland, applicant, said that the premises interpreted food as a main meal, with each customer expected to purchase one.

 

Dom Stagg, Environmental Protection, was asked whether the premises had any history of complaints. Mr Stagg said that none had been received, though the premises had been the subject of two previously refused planning applications. He said that he was happy that the applicant has agreed to the proposed conditions and that the fact that some of the representations made in respect of the premises licence had not been withdrawn was not a significant concern to Environmental Health.

 

Applicant

 

Mr Mulholland, applicant, said that the premises planned to serve only wine and beer, and would insist that a main meal was purchased and consumed with any alcohol purchase on match days. He said that the premises intended to run as a local family café/restaurant, serving bistro style food: he said that current meals included meat and pasta main dishes priced from £5.50-£7.50. He said the premises would use the outside space as a seated area for people eating at the premises, which would be closed from 9pm and would only hold 12 people.

 

In response to a question from the Chairman, he said that plants would further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Punto, 112 Askew Road, London, W12 9BL (Application Number: 2012/01683/LAPR) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received and considered an application for a new premises licence for Punto, 112 Askew Road, London, W12 9BL.

 

Main Points Of Evidence

 

Licensing Officer

 

Adrian Overton, Licensing Officer, introduced the application. He said that the Police and Environmental Protection had made representations to the application during the consultation period. The applicant has accepted the conditions proposed by the Police and Environmental Protection. The Police has subsequently withdrawn their representation.

 

One local resident and the Planning Enforcement team also made representations..He confirmed that the premises were located in the Shepherds Bush Cumulative Impact Zone.

 

Councillor Cartwright asked whether the Sub-Committee could grant a licence to a premises which did not have planning permission to carry out the activities licensed. Adesuwa Omoregie, Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee, said that the planning and licensing regimes were separate, and that it should rely upon the licensing considerations to determine the application

 

Responsible Authorities

 

Environmental Protection

 

Dom Stagg, Environmental Protection, said that even though the applicant had accepted the proposed conditions that  his representation had not been withdrawn. He said that the premises had been refused planning permission on the advice of Environmental Protection, so he wished to remain a party to the hearing.

 

He also outlined the complaint history of the premises, which had been operating with the aid of Temporary Event Notices. He said that there had been a substantiated complaint on 20th/21st December, but that the music had been turned down at midnight. He understood this to have been a staff party.

 

Planning Enforcement

 

Catherine Thornton, Planning Enforcement Team leader, said that the applicant had made a planning application at the Planning Department’s request, when the change of use came to light. The application was subsequently refused, due to the ventilation arrangements at the back of the building.

 

Ms Thornton said that the rear extension of the premises was in residential use, which meant ducting travelled up the building to the roofline. At present, the ducting passed too close to the windows of residential properties above, and the noise from its use would substantially affect the amenity of those properties. She said that the Planning department also have concerns about refuge storage.

 

She concluded that the premises was, as things stood, an unlawful development, She confirmed that the planning department would normally expect that applications for licensing matter are postponed until planning issues are resolved.

 

Applicant

 

Bob Messham, Licensing Consultant to the applicant, said that the licensing and planning regimes are two different regimes which should be kept separate, and that he, and Bekim Tahiri, who attended the hearing with him, were not involved in the planning application (which was being dealt with by the applicant’s partner, Mr De Rossi)

 

With regards to the application before the Sub-Committee, Mr Messham said that all proposed conditions had been accepted, and that the Sub-Committee should deal with it in those terms. He said that Mr Tahiri ran an identical premises in Old Windsor, and was a responsible operator who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.