Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alford.

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.

Councillor Perez explained that she was a Ward Councillor for Shepherd’s Bush Green where Swallow Coffee Shop was located; she said that she did not know the applicant or any of those residents who had made representations.

Adrian Overton explained that the application was for the sale of alcohol on the premises from 12 noon until 7.30pm Monday to Sunday. Conditions had been agreed with the Council’s Noise and Nuisance team and a number of other conditions had been included in the operating schedule, following pre-application advice from the Licensing team. 1 objection had been received to the proposal from a local business owner. The premises were located within the Shepherd’s Bush Green cumulative impact area.

Horatio Chance explained that location of the premises within the cumulative impact area meant that the applicant was required to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives in order for the Sub-Committee to be able to grant the licence.

Richard Lieper, the applicant’s representative, said that no negative cumulative impact would arise if the application were to be granted. He noted that only one representation remained and that this was from another local restaurant business; he reminded the meeting that concern about competition was not something which the licensing authority should consider in making their decision.

Mr Lieper explained that the cumulative impact of licenced premises in Shepherd’s Bush related mainly to street drinking and resulting anti-social behaviour. He said that the application was for on-sales only and that the problems with street drinking would not therefore be exacerbated by the premises. He added that the premises would implement a number of policies to prevent customers from causing disorder or nuisance, these policies included: Challenge 25; Alcohol to be served only as an ancillary to a substantial meal; Entry to be refused to anyone who was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He explained that as alcohol would be ordered at the counter and staff would be delivering it to tables customers’ behaviour would be constantly monitored. Mr Lieper explained that there were no objections from local residents, and that indeed the Richford Street Residents Association was supportive of the application. He noted that the applicant lived in the local area and would not allow the premises to have any negative impact on his neighbourhood.

The Chair asked how many people the café could seat. Matt Parkes explained that there were 2 tables for four people in the rear outside area and 40 seats inside the café. There was no room for people to stand and drink, although there was one high table with stools by the window.

The Chair asked how the café’s policy on customers under the influence of drugs or alcohol worked. Mr Parkes explained that if people who appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol tried to enter the premises staff would ask them to leave. He explained that the most frequent use of the policy was drug addicts wanting to use the café’s toilet to inject themselves, which happened about once a week.

Horatio Chance asked what training staff were given. Mr Parkes explained that staff were generally trained informally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Adrian Overton explained that the application was for the provision of late night refreshment on and off the premises from 23.00 to 01.00 Monday to Saturday and 23.00 to 00.30 on Sundays. The hours had been reduced by 30 minutes Monday to Saturday and by 60 minutes on Sundays at the request of the police. The Noise and Nuisance service had made representations regarding additional conditions and a further reduction in hours but these had not been agreed by the applicant. Mr Overton explained that the application had been made as a result of a warning letter sent by the Licensing Authority as the premises had been trading after 11pm without permission. Licensing officers had given pre-application advice.

Keith Mehaffy explained that the Noise Nuisance service was concerned about the potential for noise to be created by customers of the premises. He explained that the applied for hours might lead the premises to become a destination venue, attracting lots of potentially noisy people late at night. Mr Mehaffy said that there was potential for noise from people parking in nearby residential areas, and from customers congregating near the premises. Reducing the hours to midnight Sunday to Thursday would help to mitigate these risks on days when residents were likely to need to go to work the next morning. Mr Mehaffy explained that there were also problems with the premises creating cooking smells and noise from equipment which could create a public nuisance. He had proposed conditions relating to problems with the premises operation, which he hoped the Sub-Committee would impose.

Angela Howarth explained that she lived above the Chelsea Grill and that the premises caused strong cooking smells in her flat; she clarified that this had not been a problem with previous take away restaurants operating from the unit. She feared that extended hours would cause the smells to last longer. Ms Howarth said that there were also problems with litter and with people loitering at the rear of the premises which she worried would be exacerbated by longer opening hours.

Kasim Chaudry said that he did not believe customers would park in nearby residential roads as there was free parking in front of the shop from 7pm onwards and did not expect noise nuisance to result from his customers. He said that the hours applied for had already been reduced at the request of the police and that a further reduction would damage the business’s profitability. Mr Chaudry addressed the concerns raised by Ms Howarth and explained that a new extraction system had been given planning permission and would be installed soon which would reduce the cooking smells. He said that the business’s waste was removed by a waste collection contractor twice a week and that the rubbish was placed directly into a large metal bin to the rear of the premises before collection. Mr Chaudry also said that he was not aware of people hanging round at the rear of the shop and added that customers could only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Noise Nuisance service has requested an adjournment of this hearing to a date after 23 October 2017. The request was made owing to the case officer, Keith Mehaffy, being unavailable for personal reasons. The Noise Nuisance service has considered whether another officer would be able to attend a hearing within the 20 working days allowed for consideration, but has concluded that only Keith Mehaffy can effectively present the service’s representation owing to his knowledge of the case.

The applicant has been consulted and has confirmed that they have no objection to the adjournment, so long as the hearing is rearranged before 27 October. The Licensing Authority has been consulted as they made a representation, and they have confirmed that they do not object to the adjournment.

Members are invited to consider the request and the responses from the applicant and the Licensing Authority and determine whether it is in the public interest to adjourn the hearing.

This item was not considered as the representations relating to the premises had been withdrawn and the application could therefore be determined without a hearing.