Application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.
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
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 The Police has subsequently withdrawn their representation.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
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said that even though the applicant had accepted the proposed conditions that his representation had not been withdrawn.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.
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.
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 worked closely with the Police and Environmental Protection. He said that the premises had agreed a trade waste contract with the Council, who had placed a bin in the outside area and therefore there was no issue with refuse storage. He said that the premises would be a credit to the area.
The Chairman asked what the premises had been before the change of use. Mr Messham said that the premises had been a flower shop.
The Chairman asked why the applicant was confident that they would avoid the problems common to the CIZ. Mr Messham said that the premises was on the border of the cumulative impact zone, was an Italian restaurant with no plans for music and dancing.
He confirmed that the intention was that background music would be provided. Recorded Music had been applied for, as this was preferred by some licensing authorities however the applicant would be happy to withdraw that element of the application if the licensing authority considered it unnecessary.
Councillor Cartwright asked what steps were being taken with regards to the planning application. Mr Tahiri said that the initial advice given by the Planning Authority had been short of detail, and the applicant was working to address their concerns by moving the ducting.
Mr Overton noted that the application for recorded music had been withdrawn.
Mr Stagg said that the Sub-Committee could consider imposing a condition tying the legal operation of plant to the grant of a licence and that the current extract system was likely to cause a nuisance. He said that it had been audible on his inspection of the premises.
Ms Thornton said that she withdrew her comments on refuse, given the information submitted by Mr Messham.
Mr Messham said only the licensing issues should be considered and that there had been no complaints about the premises or the operation of its equipment. He said that the conditions added to the application would ensure the premises would operate safely.
The Sub-Committee retired at 11.20am, returning at 11.33am
The Sub-Committee unanimously agree to refuse the application on the grounds of public protection and safety, pubic nuisance and the impact on the Cumulative Impact Zone
Full reasons for decision are contained in the decision letter which accompanies these minutes.