Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Application for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003.

The application was withdrawn.

Application for a summary review under the Licensing Act 2003.

The Sub-Committee held a hearing to consider the application for a summary review under section 53C of the Licensing Act in respect of LaLa Restaurant, 1 Blacks Road, London, W16 9DT.

Main Points of Evidence

Licensing Officer

Lewis Aldous, Licensing Officer, introduced the review, noting that there had been two hearings held prior to this and interim steps were in place.  A supplementary agenda had been distributed to members that included representations submitted by the Premises and Applicant.  A copy of the Consent Order ratified by the Magistrates Court on 28 November, which modified the premises licence, was included in the supplementary agenda.

Lewis Aldous referred to a letter from the Police, on page 7 of the supplementary agenda, which noted a number of points within the Consent order which in their view effectively made the premise licence unworkable.  The points raised in summary were as follows:

Paragraph 3 of the Consent Order 3 reads 10:00/07:00, which requires clarification from the Licensing Authority and LALA Restaurant.

Paragraph 5 of the Consent Order is in conflict with condition 16 of the premises licence and should read: There shall be no entry or re-entry to the basement of the premise after 00:00 hours (save for patrons re-entering after smoking).

Paragraph 9 of the Consent order deletes premise licence condition 10.   Condition 11 of the premises licence should also be deleted to ensure that there is no conflict with the existing conditions.

It was noted that reference to “Consent order no.3” as above should refer to paragraph 2 of the Consent Order”.  Lewis Aldous also confirmed that the hours in paragraph 2 should refer to 10:00 and not 07:00.

In response to questions from the Chairman, the Sub-Committee was told that the Consent Order on pages 3 to 5 of the supplementary agenda had been ratified by the Court and had already modified the conditions of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee was also advised that the licence holder had agreed to the amendments to the conditions suggested  by the Police in the letter.

Responsible Authorities

Metropolitan Police

Police Constable Michael Payne commented that the Consent Order was made last week and was signed by the Council and the Premises.  The Police agree with the terms of the Consent Order subject to their suggested amendments to the conditions.  The Police had met Mehmet Adisen and his solicitor to go through the Consent Order and that was when they discovered some amendments that needed to be made.

The Chairman asked why it was necessary for a Sub-Committee meeting to be held to consider the amendments if they had been agreed with the Licensing Officers and Premises.  PC Michael Payne replied that the Consent Order was between the Council and licence holder and not the Police.  Lewis Aldous also commented that officers were not able to amend the conditions as requested by the Police.

Premises

MehmetAdisen, for the premises, confirmed that he agreed to all of the amendments to the licence put forward.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.