Licensing Committee - Tuesday 8 July 2025, 6:30pm

Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 8th July 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Good evening.

and welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Committee. This meeting is

being webcast and some officers may be accessing virtually. Please bear with

us if we experience technical difficulties. My name is Councillor

French and I'm chair of the Licensing Committee. Members of the committee, I

will now call your names in alphabetical order. Please switch on your microphone

to confirm your attendance. Councillors Burchill. Good evening.

Councillor Davis. Good evening.

Councillor Humphreys. Good evening, Chair.

Councillor Jeffery. Good evening.

Councillor Justin. Good evening.

Councillor McLeod. Good evening, Chair.

Councillor Pridham. Good evening.

Councillor Brooks. Apologies have received from Councillors Marshall,

Legacy text, Councillor Paul.

Good evening.

I was not looking in the room, I was reading my paper.

Always look at the room, look at the paper as well. Cross check.

Thank you for that, apologies, Councillor Paul.

Members are reminded to ensure that your microphone is turned off unless you are speaking.

When you are called to speak and every time you do speak, please state your name.

Please bear in mind that the committee must remain quorum at all times

and that you should remain present throughout the item under the discussion

in order to legitimately vote on that item unless you have a conflict of interest with the item.

We have a number of officers present who will introduce themselves when they address the committee.

Agenda item one. Minutes of the last meeting of the licensing committee held on the 29th of January

2025. Are the minutes of the licensing committee held on the 29th of January 2025 agreed and can I

sign them off as a correct record of the meeting. Agreed. Thank you. I'll sign and date this

at the end of the meeting, Mr Flowers. Agenda item 2, declarations of interest. Are there

any declarations of either pecuniary, other registrable or non -registrable interests?

Please declare any interests quoting the item and paper number in which you have interest

and describing the nature of your interest,

including whether or not you'll be taking part in the item.

Any member declaring a pecuniary interest must leave the meeting room

without speaking on the item first

until you are advised by democratic services

that you may re -enter the meeting room.

Any member declaring any other registrable interest

or non -registable interest in an agenda item

which directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of your interest,

or of a relative or close associate for non -registable interests,

may address the meeting if you wish.

But you must not participate in the discussion or vote,

and must then leave the meeting room

until you are advised by democratic services that you may re -enter the room.

Any interest to declare?

Thank you.

I can also see that Councillor Sweet has joined us,

so we'll just amend the record.

Thank you, Councillor Sweet.

Agenda item three.

We have the cumulative impact assessment for Wandsworth.

It's paper number 25 to 2543,

report by the executive director of environment

and community services

and the executive director of finance.

The presenting officer is Ms. Caroline Sharkey.

It is for decision by the licensing committee.

The Licensing Committee is recommended to approve the recommendations as detailed in Power Graphs 1 .1 to 1 .4 of the report.

For E's that's pages 3 to 116.

Councillor Sharkey. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

Thank you, Chair. I'll be presenting the report today. It's Caroline Sharkey, Licensing

Manager. I'm mindful that the members have read the report, so I will give you the summary

of the report that you have before you, members. So at its meeting on the 29th of January,

the Licensing Committee members reviewed the data that would form the evidential basis

for introducing a cumulative impact policy in any part of the borough and agreed, and

the members at that time, that date, they agreed that the consultation should revolve

around the proposal that there is sufficient evidence available to support the introduction

of a cumulative impact policy in Tooting Broadway and Clapham Junction for the off sales of

alcohol only.

members also agreed that there was sufficient evidence to support

introduction of a cumulative impact policy relating to the sale of

late night refreshment only that's hot food and drinks between 11 p .m. and 5 a .m.

The CIA research report chair that was presented to the committee is attached

to Appendix A of the report, which is produced on pages 11 to 82 of the agenda.

The Committee also determined that it was not appropriate at that time to include any

other area of the Barra in the cumulative impact assessment.

The Committee then approved for the Licensing Authority to carry out a public consultation,

and this consultation chair was carried out on the 10th of March and the deadline was

the 8th of June. The consultation included all the statutory interested parties that

the licensing authority has to consult with. They are listed under paragraph 3 of one of

the committee report. The licensing authority also contacted all the responsible authorities,

Solicitors who regularly represent license orders at hearings or when submitting applications

in the Barra.

We also consulted with trade association ward councillors, local MPs, residents associations

and other key stakeholders that received email notifications about the applications that

we receive in the Barra.

The consultation chair was posted on the website and we also published it in the local newspaper.

As part of the consultation process, as discussed with the members at the last Committee, we

did produce a frequently asked document on CIA to make it clear to members of the public

and interested parties.

And this is produced again, Chair, in Appendix B of the report on pages 83 to 87 of the Agenda.

We received 50 responses online to the online consultation, and one response was received

via an email. Of those that responded to the consultation, Chair 48 were individual residents.

We also received a response from the Met Police Award Councillor and also from Positively

Putney Bead. These responses are detailed and produced at Appendix C of the report on

pages 89 to 116 of the agenda. So for the Tooting Broadway CIA consultation, 24 % agreed

that there should be a special policy on cumulative impact relating to off sales of alcohol. 14 %

disagreed with the proposed policy and 52 indicated that they had no view on whether

the policy should be introduced. In response to the exceptions list that was agreed at

the committee, 2 % disagreed with the proposed list of exception, 10 % agreed with the exception

and 2 % indicated that they had no view. The Metropolitan Police Chair were in full support

of the proposed cumulative impact policy for Tooting Broadway because they have stated

in their comments that this is due to a high level of responses that the police receives

in that area and it becomes an area of flashpoint and it is busy in the borough. So the majority

that responded to the consultation for two team Broadway had no view whether the special

policy board could be introduced but some respondents did state that they were in agreement

and we had 24 % who said that.

In relation to Clapham Junction cumulative impact policy,

32 % agreed that there should be a special policy

to relating to off sales of alcohol only.

10 % disagreed with the proposed policy.

38 indicated that they had no view.

And in response to the exception list

that is proposed in the cumulative impact research report,

6 % disagreed with the proposed list, 14 % agreed with it, 2 % indicated they had no view.

And again, Chair, we had support from the Metropolitan Police who are in support of

the policy and they've stated again that Clapham Junction remains one of the busiest areas

in the borough and it's already saturated.

So the majority that responded had no view, but we had 32 % that agreed to the special

policy being introduced.

And then for Putney High Street, we received 74 % who agreed that there should be a special

policy for late night refreshment only.

Fourteen percent disagreed with the proposed policy.

Twelve percent indicated that they had no view.

but the majority, as you can see from the report, members did agree that they should

be a CIA in Patney for late night refreshment.

In terms of introducing a special policy in other areas, we did receive 10 responses and

the areas that were listed were Patney, Roehampton and Wandsworth, Northcott Road, Ballam High

Street, Wandsworth Town, East End of Upper Richmond Road and Wandsworth area in front

of the Southside Shopping Centre. But what I would like to say, Chair, at this point

is that members should note that the key interest areas that were produced and that they considered

was those three areas that we've reported in the report. But also if members were minded

to approve the CIA. There is a statutory requirement to review it every three years and the areas

that have been put forward we could go back and collect that data, analyse it and present

it back to committee to look at how the incidents look like. And also, members should note that

we are still carrying on as business as usual so if there's any problems in those areas

we still work with our key interested parties, key partnership with the police, noise and

nuisance team to resolve issues. So there's that angle as well to look at.

So tonight members are asked to consider the comments that were received during the public

consultation and members are asked to approve the proposed CIA areas and also if members

want to make any amendments to approve the delegated authority to me, Chair, as the licensing

manager through your consultation to make any amendments that you would consider appropriate.

And that's the summary of the report. I'm happy to answer any questions or any points

of clarification at this stage. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms Sharkey. I think I'll start by just thanking the officers for the incredible

amount of work that has gone into this, the data that was collected last time, also like

reading through the responses and collating this. I just would like to thank the team

for the dedication and I'd like to ask the fellow committee members whether we have any

questions for Ms. Sharkey.

Councillor Sweet.

Thank you, Chairman.

Not so much a question as a comment.

I mean, I agree, endorse your comments about thanking the officers for doing the job on

the consultation.

I think the response numbers are rather disappointing.

I think as a matter of principle, I don't support the Council making changes on the

basis of 50 responses, which are really going to have an impact on the way licensed premises

operate in the borough.

So I'd love to hear a bit of feedback on why the response rates are so low and what we

could do to improve our understanding of people's opinion on this important matter.

Thank you, Councillor Sweeten.

Can I just encourage you just to bring your mic down just slightly because a bit high

I couldn't hear you properly. I want to make sure that I capture everything but I appreciate it. Ms. Sharkey, would you like to respond to that?

Yeah, thank you and thank you chair.

What I would say is that the number in terms of from experience those are good numbers, but we did push

for the consultation more than we've done previously because I recall coming to committee

I think it was last year where we didn't have a lot of consultation results, but that was

a gambling paper.

I do appreciate this is the CIA.

Hence, we went on all social media platforms.

We are engaged with the consultation team to push for this.

We don't usually put the consultation, we don't usually publish it in the newspaper.

So we were mindful this is a new policy, so we had to push it through other platforms

and we did our best.

But I do not your point.

We can look, we can evaluate in future if we did run a similar CIA consultation.

but we did try every possible platform we could use to ensure we engage with the public

and more importantly the responsible authority, the key people that we are supposed to consult

legally. In terms of the cumulative impact policy, and I'm hoping the frequently asked

question does cover that. It doesn't stop anybody from applying for a license. All it

does is making a threshold to say that area is saturated. Anybody can apply, but they

have to just provide evidence to show that they are not going to add to any cumulative

impact. And the only time that we could refuse a license, if it's come before you, members,

through a sub -licensing sub -committee, if we didn't receive any representation, we are

legally required to grant an application.

I don't know whether that helps.

Thank you.

Councillor Sweet.

Thank you for the response and I completely agree.

This is a technical area.

It's hard to get members of the public to perhaps engage on something like this.

They may not appreciate why it's so important.

Nonetheless, I do feel very uncomfortable in a borough of 300 ,000 -plus people that we're

making a decision on the basis of 50 responses.

And I think committee members should think really hard about whether that's actually

appropriate.

It's a significant change.

At the last discussion of this, we were asked to accept that in these areas there was a

that required us to do this, and we all looked and discussed the evidence.

And yet, with only 50 responses, that's making me think that that evidence wasn't actually

to be interpreted in the way that we did, because I think if it was such a big deal,

we would have had more responses from the public.

I'd love to know other committee members' views, but I personally feel quite uncomfortable

with only 50 responses to something like this.

I would like to just come in on that.

I echo the concern that it wasn't more, but I also think the representations from the

police in two of the areas represent that there is concern from the authorities that

are having to respond to what could be nuisance or potential public disorder.

So I would like wait that they have taken the time as statutory stakeholders to respond

and I suppose could evidence in the areas highlighted that there is an issue.

As you conceded, the admission was that it's quite a technical area.

So maybe that is part of the reason there is such a low take -up.

I think from chairing the licensing committee and the work that's gone into it, I would

be reluctant that we wouldn't introduce it and then look at review it in the next three

years.

The work has taken some time to go forward.

We understand that there have been identifications of areas where there are problems and I'd be prudent to want to respond to that

Knowing that in the next three years regardless of what next year's election looks like the administration has the power to review

rather than us

Kind of not do anything, but I am I am looking forward to having some discussion on this. I would welcome

councillors to to to to to to respond and

Councillor Justin?

I was really just going to back up what Councillor Sweet there.

50 respondents is very poor.

Not only that, quoting them back to us as percentages actually makes it, hides the issue of the poor response.

If you just said how many, it would have sounded a lot less, given it lost less importance.

It's quoting percentages makes it.

On the basis of such few respondents, are we then to give greater importance to the

authorities like the police who have then equated their response in a fixed number of

incidents and you would imagine that every incident then would be something that is important,

probably more weight applied to those incidents than the 50 respondents.

Thank you.

Councillor, Ms Sharkey.

Through you, Chair, I just wanted to point out, I appreciate the concerns raised,

but the data in itself, it is linked to licensed premises,

that's data that you have before you that should have a high threshold.

and also we have consulted legally with the statutory people that we have to consider as required by law.

And also in addition, yes, the police are the key.

We usually do have to rely on the police in terms of their comments when we receive consultation such as cumulative impact area,

that even when we get licensing through the licensing subcommittee, their evidence could

be heavily relied on.

But I just wanted to add that it's the data that you've got, that members have got in

front of them, which is telling, and consultation to members of the public just feeds into that.

Yeah, I don't know whether the legal advisor would like to add any comments on that.

Mr Bishop, it's okay.

I just got a couple of councillors with their hands up.

So just take, yeah, take those and then we'll come to you.

Councillor McLeod and then Councillor Sweet.

I mean, sorry, Councillor Pridham.

Yeah, Councillor McLeod.

Oh, hello there, yeah.

So likewise, I'm gonna share concern

about doing anything that says it engages

and only engages with so few people.

Listening to residents is very important to us.

I think it is important.

To reiterate though what Ms. Sharkey's saying,

that that's not the main reason,

that's not the main bit of evidence

that's being used for this.

It's one of the strands.

And while I would have loved a thousand people

to be engaged in licensing,

I've spent a lot of time on this committee,

I would love more people to understand why it's important

and engage with a survey like that.

but I guess it is what it is.

And so likewise, I wouldn't want us to not move ahead

with something that could be quite empowering

for this committee and give us some extra strength

to do some of the things that sometimes me might wanna do.

I wouldn't wanna not move ahead with that

just because this has been a disappointing response.

Thank you, Councillor McLeod, Councillor Priton.

Thanks very much.

My concern is actually with the threshold.

So on page 86, it says that if an applicant cannot demonstrate that there will be no increase

in the cumulative impact during the hearing, then it's the policy of the licensing authority

to refuse the application, which in my view is that's a very hard thing to prove.

You can't prove that there will be no negative impact.

And I would find it hard to see how an applicant would convincingly be able to prove that.

And I just worry that there might be circumstances where you have one representation which triggers

a hearing and the napkin isn't able to prove that there'll be no negative impact and then

automatically the panel has to refuse the application and I just worry if I wonder if

we could change the wording a touch to just allow a little bit more discretion on the

part of the subcommittee.

Thank you Councillor Pridham. I think that could be a fantastic point for you to come

in on Mr Bishop.

Okay, where do I start?

So responses from stakeholders, especially the police, are normally taken as very indicative

of the data that you're relying on to put such policy in place.

that you've got so few responses from residents, etc. is not necessarily the be -all and end -all

in terms of how you make this decision, because the decision is already made up of the data

that's within the reports and that would be exhibited to the cumulative impact assessment.

specifically things like the crime and disorder heat maps, which basically those sort of things would then form a document that allows licensing subcommittees,

when considering applications, to take a stronger view than they necessarily can do at the moment.

And the benefit to that is that they have more power to impose more conditions or maybe

refuse an application or change it in some way.

In terms of them making that assessment, it has to be each time on the evidence in front

of them.

And even if you've got one person making a representation, the evidence that's within

the papers before the licensing subcommittee are the things that guide them towards that

decision.

There is, within the special policy, the ability to allow that licensing subcommittee to overreach

it to make a decision that's different from that person who's one person who's doing a

rep or ten people doing a representation against it.

And the thing that's so good about it is it allows you to have the tools to make a stronger

decision than you're currently allowed to under the legislation.

And that's why these policies have come in around the country, especially it was created

originally by Guildford.

And so therefore it's a tool that the licensing subcommittee can benefit from.

It's done, as I say, on the data, and the data is extensive, hence the thickness of

the report.

I don't know what else to say.

Is there anything else I need to add?

Ms. Sharkey?

Sorry, through you, Chair, yeah, I just wanted to also say the fact that we've not received

a response, it may mean that people already didn't want to comment because they approve

of the policy or they, you know, they might not.

So yeah, the majority do, but yes.

So I just wanted to add that. Thank you.

Councillor Davies.

I'll come back to you, Councillor.

I had that very precise thought actually about the, you know, the absence of, you know, putting in a comment could mean that you are just generally satisfied with it or you don't have a strong view either way.

But to me, it seems very sensible that we want to have a toolkit, we want to have, you

know, everything possible at our disposal.

You know, I think, yeah, it's very useful to know about this information about, yeah,

we can consider putting on sort of more conditions, for example, and that might be a way of handling

it, and we're not just looking at refusal.

seems sensible approach to me.

Thank you.

Councillor Burdle.

I just wanted a bit more clarification on the exact threshold because in the wording

here it says if the applicant cannot demonstrate that it will not increase the cumulative impact

within the specified cumulative impact zone, then it shall be the policy of this licensing

authority to refuse the application.

Does it, is it actually that the subcommittee will have more discretion than that wording

implies?

Thank you for the clarification.

then Councillor Sweet and then Councillor Hunt.

Just sorry, Councillor, if it helps. A really good example here would be, for example, if

you had a shop that had only 12 covers or that would go through, if it was 50, then

you'd be more concerned about it. If it was doing a certain type of offer, so it was doing

food and alcohol, you might think that's different

because it's the food that means they don't drink vertically.

Similarly, if it's a nightclub,

you know what's gonna happen sort of thing.

But it's not a guillotine.

There's a fluidity to it which helps.

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Bishop.

Councilor Sweet.

Thank you again.

I want to just come back on some of the consultation process

and responses. I was particularly concerned by the response from the Partney bid on page

105 onwards, but there are a few concerning statements here. And I suppose they fall into

the category of a particularly knowledgeable consultee. They're not just a member of the

public. So we should give their commentary more weight, I suppose, just like we would

the police. But there are some significant concerns in this. I mean, the first is around

the way the consultation has been done, and I'll just read out from it because I think

it's quite important. So the consultee says, I was very disappointed to be made aware of

this report back in early March. I thought as a bid we were working in partnership with

the council and would have expected that someone would have made us aware of the research being

undertaken and also ask for the bids input. So I think that the first thing

I'd like to hear a view on is what happened there and so that we can weigh

up whether that's actually an issue with the consultation more broadly. I think

possibly even more important than that though is that this particular bid has

some quite significant concerns about the premise of the cumulative impact

assessment altogether. So just, I mean, there's a lot of information here, but just for example,

page 107, in this consultee's view, the heat maps don't show partners should be of concern.

It has very similar colored heat map to Wandsworth. And then a bit further down, we want people

that live here to feel safe and those that visit to have a good time and get home safely.

We know we have some challenges, but we do not agree with the narrative that's presented

in this report and do not feel that the evidence presented matches the narrative and then no

belief that we therefore do not see how a cumulative impact assessment will fulfill

any objective that one sort of council may have.

I won't go through all of the evidence there, but I would imagine what a bid is getting

at is a concern that this is actually going to be bad for business.

I sitting on the committee recognize that this is actually just giving discretion to

us to make you would say better decisions but I also have a lot of

sympathy for a bid that's just trying to stand up for business and for the local

high street and if they're expressing these concerns about the way the

consultation was done and about the very premise of the cumulative impact

assessment I think that should give us pause. Thank you Councillor Sweet. Ms.

a response just alongside the comments that were received and I did explain to the bid,

Putnam bid, that the initial gathering we don't usually, that is evidence and data that's

obtained from, through data sources, various data sources like from community safety, licensing

records, we have to gather those heat maps that were produced at the beginning.

We then, the process after that is then you start engaging as a consultation process,

and that's exactly what we did, because we had to gather initial data to produce the

report to show where the indications were.

So I did provide a lengthy response to that in terms of the comments that were received.

And then I further explained, Chair, that cumulative impact does not affect existing license holders.

It just identifies that that area is saturated and for any new operators that are coming in the area,

they have to provide that evidence that they won't add any cumulative impact.

And I did also explain that if no objections are received, we are legally required to grant the application.

and if any objections are received, again as discussed through the legal advisor, it

has to come to committee.

And the other things I pointed out there is that the evidence is there in terms of the

areas and the incident reports, and these maps were collected and the evidence that

was provided links all the issues to license premises.

So that's why I went through and just indicated which areas came out for patney and the numbers of the incidents in our key interest areas.

So I produced that just to reiterate that that's the first data that the committee was scrutinizing.

And yeah, and then we received 74 % as I've reported from other residents wanting the cumulative impact.

But I think it is acknowledged that there was a worry, but I did hope that through the

response that we've provided, that kind of alleviates any fears in terms of the existing

license holders and how the CIA, if implemented, would be assessed through the applicants showing

that threshold, new applicants showing that threshold.

I don't know whether that helps. Thanks.

Councillor Humphries. No. Yeah, Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair. I think we all share concerns about changing any kind of policy

and understandably when that rate on the responses is low. I think we all get that.

I think that it's demonstrably clear that this is a really complex issue,

a complex concept to try to explain, particularly to the public,

let alone to businesses and licensed holders and things like that.

So I think whatever the result of our decision tonight, if it's to go ahead with the process,

I think we've got a hard job – actually, Michelle, unfortunately, you've got a very

hard job – of being able to explain to the public, perhaps in the press releases and

whatever else kind of information we put out, what it actually does mean and what it doesn't

mean.

Because I do think clearly from the public there's a misconception about what it is.

And I think I agree with Councillor Pridham and Councillor Sweet that the last thing we'd want to do is for

any business or potential business to feel we're putting a straight jacket on them before they've even started.

We're open for business, we want people to come and do things in the borough.

We have to make it very clear that this is a tool where we think there's a need for it.

It doesn't automatically mean anything.

And all the things that Mr. Bishop explained to us tonight, and it's in the report, how it actually works.

but I think we have got quite a difficult job there to explain that to the public and to businesses

what it's for and when and how it will be used when that comes up. So I

understand the concerns, but I think it can be a useful tool

and but we just have a very hard job to make the public understand and businesses understand why it's something that should help them

rather than hinder them necessarily. We just want to encourage everybody to do things the right way.

Thank you for that, Councillor Humphries. I just would like to bring Councillor

Burchill because she's not spoken yet on the matter and then I'll come to you. Please,

Councillor Burchill. Thank you very much, Chair. I would just like to agree with

quite a few of the things that have been said. The amount of work that's gone into

it is impressive, so thank you. And it's depressing that there are there aren't

more people responding and maybe that's something we look into in the future, but

it's not uncommon, is it? I think if I understand it, we are just getting

another tool in our armory to make sure that we can make the right decisions in

the area because we will still give licenses to businesses that have

that can show that they are going to be doing a good job.

And it's late night licensing in Putney which we know has been an issue

and then the off licenses in Clapham Junction and in Tooting as well.

and I think that it's a good tool because it's not going to mean that we're not going to give anybody a licence.

Thank you, Councillor Burchill. Councillor Justin.

You mentioned that this doesn't affect existing licence holders,

but I was wondering, in a situation where the licence premises changed hands

or even went dark, then was closed, might be boarded up and then reopens.

Does the new applicant get any benefit from the fact that it was previously licensed?

Just an important fact here that you might like to consider is that the average life expectancy

of a licensed premises in London is 24 months.

Now that may sound incredible to you, but when the name over the door rarely changes,

but licensed premises do have a propensity to change hands a lot more often than you

realise. And I say 24 months from inception to closure is a very short period. So I foresee

that many of the licensed premises that are existing now may have different owners in

as little as 24 months' time. So what protection does the premises have to carry on from its

previous licence, even though that will have expired and be granted to a new person?

Thank you, Ms Sharkey.

Yes, thank you, Councillor.

I can clarify that those applications are transfers and they are not affected.

So if a new owner takes over a business, that application carries on for the life of that business.

But when a licence lapses, for example, the licence is surrendered,

then they are required to apply for a new licence and then they would then come within the threshold

because it's a new application. But a transfer of a license, somebody taking over a business,

they will continue trading us there. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, points of clarification? Mr Bishop?

Yeah, it was just to add the meat on that bone slightly. So whenever you've got a premises

that stops trading, hasn't paid its fee, or goes into liquidation, winding up, whatever

it may be. They have 42 days in which to apply to transfer that license to another party

in terms of the person who takes over that premises or the landlord. And the landlord

can protect themselves and keep that license so they can pass it to the new tenant. So

that's one of those exceptions I was talking about that allows licenses to keep going.

And you will remember the license is something that is forever until and unless it lapses

or it gets reviewed.

So effectively it's not something that expires after 24 months or whatever.

That's more to do with who's able to trade and keep trading for that period.

But the point to remember is that when you're considering the options for refusing under

the cumulative impact assessment policy.

One of those things would be where there's been a license there before.

So if it's lapsed or surrendered, you'd say, well, it's had a license before, it can do

it again, therefore we'll let it go through.

So that, I would suggest, would protect business and would be positive to the bid, for example.

Thank you, Mr Bishop.

I've just been reading through some of the responses from the Putney, positive Putney bid.

I think two things came to mind was that the data showed that Putney had the highest number of licensed premises,

and I think that's something we can't ignore.

Also, obviously the representation is coming from business, so there is a different interest than that to residents.

So I think that weighs up that they will advocate for business.

And as was said, we're not trying to hinder business,

but we cannot have, I suppose,

we're elected to represent the interests of everybody,

knowing that there could be, as Councillor Burchill has raised,

issues arising from behaviour of people frequenting

or just within the area,

that we would ignore that over the rights of business.

I think it is important to reiterate that this is a tool

that we have in, dare I say, our arsenal,

to be able to make more reasons, prudent judgements going forward,

and we do have the flexibility to review it in three years time.

So I just wanted to put that in reflection that, you know,

obviously it's a very strong narrative, nothing to take away there,

but looking at the numbers, there are numerically some reasons

why we've picked Putney to be there.

And I think, Ms. Sharkey, looking ahead, it would be useful to review

or consider how we involve business stakeholders

if we were to run something like this again to ensure that we can have more meaningful,

you know, considered conversations, so it isn't just the consultation process, but

we can gather information from them in an alternative means.

Does anybody else wish to contribute?

I don't know if Councillor Pridham is pressing his button or no?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so Mr Bishop.

Sorry.

Just one other thing to say is that a cumulative impact assessment can be considered at any

time.

So if you're concerned that it's skewing something in terms of decisions, you can ask

to come back and review it and do a new policy and put it in place, even within the three

years.

I think that's incredibly useful.

Yes, please, Councillor.

Do you have any feedback?

You mentioned about Guildford were the first two deals.

Is there any feedback from Guildford as to what happens there subsequent to it having the cumulative impact zone?

Yes, it was rolled out to the whole country. Most councils have a cumulative impact zone.

But they were just the first?

Most councils, they were the first.

And how long ago was that?

So they were the first to fight an appeal and a judicial review that led to the ability to have that policy in place.

I just wondered, is there any evidence of how applications, how many have been refused

using the new powers? I know that's a difficult question.

Sorry, I've interrupted. With areas that have already got cumulative

impact zones, is there any numerical evidence to show that they were used against new applications?

No, because they're not.

I have a good example, I suppose, if you're going to think about these things, is Richmond,

that had one some time ago, and Merton.

Merton did it for off -licences in Mitcham, and then did it for the town centre in Wimbledon,

and the Wimbledon village, for example.

They decided after a while they didn't need to have the one at the top of the hill.

they had just the town center one.

So you can change it as you go along.

Similar with Richmond, they had one that looked

at each particular borough,

as borough of each particular conurbation.

And after a while they decided,

we've dealt with the problems that we were concerned about,

especially in Richmond town center.

And they then did away with it.

Okay, I think we've had fruitful discussion on this.

And I would be reminded that at this point

we would look to take a vote. So members of the committee, the recommendation is to approve

the recommendations as detailed in paragraphs 1 .1 to 1 .4 of the report. Are we in favour?

Yes. Aye. Thank you. The recommendations are approved and passed. Once again, thank you

to officers and I think Ms. Sharkey, there's, how do I say, this is not in a condescending

way, but I think we can always learn a lot of learning to be done from how we can possibly

ensure that greater engagement is looked at.

And I don't know if we can get things in more simplex terms or, I don't know, bite -size

information, but equally recognizing sometimes the silence is approval rather than objection.

So thank you to the committee members for the fruitful discussion.

We're going to now move on to Agenda Item 4, which is proposed amendments to the Licensing

Committee and Licensing Subcommittee Standing Orders and Procedural Rules, Paper No. 20

25244. Presenting officer is Mr Flowers and it's for decision by the Licensing Committee.

The decision is recommended to approve the recommendations as detailed in paragraph one

of the report. Mr Flowers.

Good evening, Councillors. The following report and appendices provides information around

a review that was conducted by officers. This is because the licensing standing orders and

procedures haven't been reviewed now for some time and what we wanted to do was make sure

that everything in the document reflects existing practices, lessons learned and changing methods

in things such as attendance methods for people in terms of you could take the growth of remote

meetings and participation both by councillors and the public.

All the changes we would say are largely considered minor.

They don't change anything that's being done existently, but they do make sure the document

does reflect, as I say, current administrative practices, ensuring that what the public sees

as a document is the accurate reflection of what's taking place behind the scenes.

There is a summary document that is in the second appendix, and I think the one thing

I would just refer you to in terms of a proposed new addition is to add a timeframe in which,

for the last material to be submitted as supplementary.

In the past, the council has been caught out

with late material that can be quite complex,

which can lead to hearings being potentially adjourned.

And as I'm sure members will appreciate,

sometimes when it's a review hearing,

there's an importance in getting that considered

as soon as possible, but late evidence can delay that.

So what's being proposed now is that there'll be

a 12 noon deadline the day before hearing.

Anything after that is not accepted

unless it's entirely agreed by the committee, but it would move the onus on everything being

submitted before then it would be communicated to the public in the notice of hearing and

we think that will be a positive addition in ensuring that there's more transparency

and ultimately fairness when it comes to decision making.

Happy to answer any questions I can see, Councillor Brooks.

So I'll...

Yeah, thank you very much.

Just a quick question about any material that the applicant attempts to submit after that

deadline, could the committee members' refusal to consider that new information be used against

the council later as a part of an appeal?

Oh, I'll pass that to Guy.

Damn.

Okay.

So, I think, yes, that would be your first port of call for an appeal, and that's the

whole point is, you know, you're trying to have a fair hearing, so there'd be that conflict

between Human Rights Act, ECHR, and that sort of thing, as opposed to their right to try

and bring in evidence in the hearing. So the idea is to say, look, get all your stuff in

early so that everybody has a chance to have a fair hearing and consider all the paperwork

rather than be ambushed at the last minute. And that's the point. Now, yes, there are

when it may be that the committee, when they sit, might say, I'm happy with this document

going round, and ask the applicant or the person responding to the review whether they're

going to be happy with it going round.

And if everybody's in agreement, yes, it can happen.

But I think you'll find on an appeal, they might try and fight it on that basis.

It not necessarily could always help them, but it's something they'll try.

But there you go.

Thank you, Mr Bishop.

Mr Florence.

No, and just to echo that, I think the times we're referring to where this has been a big

problem, I think some members who were sitting on the Corrin, for example, which was a particularly

difficult one where, and I think there was another one, I can't remember the name, but

there was about a 70 page supplementary document submitted at the last minute.

Obviously, for members of the committee who do have work outside of being councillors,

you're not always going to have time to review that.

So as Guy said, it's not banning entirely.

It'll be a case by case, but what it does is gives you, again, more of a tool to say

you've had very clear instructions in terms of when to submit it by.

Anything after that will only be considered with the relevant consent, whereas at the

moment, we're in a slightly grey area where late material, we're kind of having to say

it's on the day, that's when it will be flagged as agreeable. But in theory, someone could

submit something, for example, for the meeting tonight very late last night, and we'd probably

be needing to accept it and circulating it to you, and you just wouldn't have had time

to review it. And just to reassure councillors, when it comes to remote meetings, we do intend

any summary review, or one with significant public interest, to automatically continue

to be hybrid meetings, such as one of the applications tonight with 20 objections.

And we think the balance that's been working at the moment has been quite positive in terms

of what we're seeing with public engagement and also, Councillor, kind of being flexible

to support you with your availability.

So we hope that's been something that's been working for you since we went into full -time.

Councillor Jeffrey.

Thank you.

So in terms of like if somebody if one of the applicant brings in a lot of papers

After the deadline is passed will there be a way that they can get an adjournment or would it be a straight?

Refusal I mean obviously we can't go through a box of papers in such a great time

So I mean what would be going forward? How could we deal with that?

I think the first point of call I would be speaking to guy and

Caroline and checking based on the evidence being received what what their view is and

and then we'd look to speak to councillors.

It might be that an adjournment is in the best interest

of everyone, it might be that it can be dealt with verbally

at the meeting, it's a case by case basis,

but it wouldn't prohibit anyone from submitting something,

it just adds an extra layer of protection

for everyone involved.

Councillor Burdum.

Yeah, so my, I fully agree with the timing on evidence,

that sounds like a very sensible change.

My concern is with remote hearings,

So I found them to not actually provide as much of an opportunity for good quality scrutiny

of the case.

And I do appreciate Mr. Blau's point about how those that are particularly controversial

will obviously still be in person.

But certainly from the remote hearings that I've done, I don't feel like there's been

the same ability to engage properly with the subject matter.

And I do worry that whilst, sure, those that have lots of objections or are particularly

controversial such as the case we mentioned a little while ago would definitely be in

person.

But I worry that we might make mistakes on the basis that we're not actually doing these

in person because we haven't considered things as properly as we would if we were doing so.

Would you like to just expand in terms of what, is it the material, what do you feel

is the difference?

I think by, you know, these are human to human interactions and actually, you know, often

you get a much better sense of how an applicant is going to approach managing their premises

if you're able to interact with them in person.

And I think if you're doing that remotely, I think it takes away a large amount of that

ability to properly scrutinize the case and it makes it quite sort of jolty at times and

you can't have that fluid conversation that we can in this kind of setting.

and I do worry that it just doesn't,

naturally of course, an application that comes

before the subcommittee has a degree of controversy to it,

otherwise we wouldn't see it.

So I do worry that it's not the best way

to consider issues when actually we're deciding

whether someone has the ability to conduct

profitable business in the borough.

Thank you for the elaboration, Mr. Flowers?

No, I do completely appreciate the comments

by Councilor Primm.

I think if I could reassure you in some regard, when we do send a notice out, it's made very

clear at the moment to the applicant that they always have the right to request an in -person

meeting.

We've only actually ever received one, and that is actually for a meeting, I think, next

month.

But I do appreciate – I think there's a degree of learning curve.

I think when remote meetings were first introduced, it's trying to find what the best balance

is, how to use the tools at our disposal.

I think it would be personally from an office perspective a mistake to remove remote meetings entirely.

I think there are benefits and I think one thing we have tried to do, I know with Councillor McLeod when he was chair,

was we tried to discuss what number of objectors would be that kind of point where we'd say this is going to be best in person

to allow that face -to -face versus what do we think can be dealt with remotely where it's maybe not contentious.

and I think there's always going to be something that evolves and we would look to take into

account in terms of when we monitor how many people are saying can we come in person or

remote. I mean the Tooting Park application for example had a lot of objectives but actually

I think only two or three people wanted to attend and I think only one or two people

attended in person so I think it's one where I'd always want to work with the opposition

speaker and the chair to find that balance. And if you've got concerns, I'd really appreciate,

for example, if you could just speak to me as well. And I can then look at, okay, is

there something we're doing wrong in terms of the administrative side that's causing

that feeling that maybe the interaction's not working as well? Or is it something we

can resolve? But I think if members would be kind of open to supporting it at the moment,

it's definitely something I think we could then continue to take away. And I like a good

governance review. So if I brought this back in terms of reviewing the standing orders

and procedures, I'd want to take your feedback on board and say, okay, this is what we're

seeing now. How can we take it further?

Councillor Pridham and then I'll come to Councillor Humphreys. Just so people are online or where

we've had Councillor Lee join us. So thank you, Councillor Lee.

I have been following online the debate. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Humphreys. Oh, Councillor Pritam and there was Councillor Humphreys. Sorry.

Yeah, just I fully accept the point that we don't want to sort of get rid of the possibility of having a remote hearing.

It does make sense in some places. I do worry that if there might be some applicants who might not appreciate the significance of that

and the impact it will have on the, you know, the weight and screening that's given to their case.

And also, I know that in some cases the applicant is represented by someone rather than them being there themselves.

And I again that's another thing that you're able to pick up on that dynamic in person

Whereas it's much harder to do that remotely as well, but happy to continue providing feedback as mr. Flowers suggests

I think you're gonna be getting lots of feedback. Mr. Flowers. So thank you for your expertise there

We're gonna pass over to counselor Humphreys and I've got counselor Jeffrey and then we'll go to counselor first and then counselor Jeffries. Yeah

Thank you chair. Yes. I have some

sympathy being an old kid with

I beg your pardon.

With that kind of thing.

I think there is a distinction to be made though, perhaps, between the applicants and

objectors and people making representations.

And I share Councillor Pridham's thoughts, perhaps, that it's a deep -seated belief

of some ways that if somebody's coming to ask for something, it would be kind of nice

if they did it face -to -face in person.

And I think we have had, without going into any specific occasions where on subcommittees

we've had applicants talking to us over a really poor phone connection from a pub, which

isn't giving the best example of how they think it's appropriate to run a business.

And I think it would be helpful for officers to remind applicants that they're supposed

to be putting their best face forward in these kind of situations.

And sometimes an in -person appearance can make a big difference to how that comes across

to the committee in their own interests as much as our interests. I think there was a

distinction between applicants and people making representations, but I agree we just

keep it flexible for the best possible thing. But face to face I like it.

Councillor Humphries, I must come in on that. I think they've just started to take business

very seriously if they're in the pub. They're letting you know they're very much about a

licensed premises, so showing you that they support other businesses, not just their...

It's a different pub or somebody else's.

A different pub, but it's all about business stakeholder interest, showing you know. Mr

flowers and then we've got council award and then councillor Jeffrey just a

reassure council Humphreys after the incident question I put together a

etiquette guide for people attending remote meetings so hopefully that won't

happen again mr. flowers thank you again for your diligence and you know

proactiveness council awards and councillor Jeffrey

Councillor Paul. I do agree and endorse the kind of hybrid

meetings, but I think we have to remember that if you think about it, the courts and

things are using running cases online, a lot of industry running online, a lot of government

are doing things virtually, making decisions that way.

So even if you are not in the room, once you have got sufficient information and you have

taking the time out to do the background reading and the person who is the applicant is doing

their bit, I don't really see how that should pose a problem.

Thank you.

Councillor Jeffrey.

Thank you.

No, I honestly prefer face -to -face meetings and I agree with the opposition in that.

But I just want to be honest, a reassurance that obviously complex cases would actually

have face -to -face interaction as opposed to online.

Because in some cases there are so many objectives that come along, and an online meeting of

that kind, I just wouldn't think it would be suitable.

So I think it would be great to just have that reassurance that yes, with them they

would come in and we can actually scrutinize them and have that fair hearing I guess.

Just to reassure you then, we do speak to licensing officers very regularly and one

of the first things we discuss when we see one that's looking, well I'll be told if it's

looking like a more complex one, but as soon as we know that we will then make arrangements.

Whenever we set out the provisional meetings we always keep a meeting room booked ready

just in case but we do have regular contact with the licensing team so we

are where well in advance normally if there's one that's a particular note and

that helps us also let you know in terms of what to expect in terms of would you

be able to attend the town hall versus other arrangements

Councillor Burcham thank you very much chair I prefer to be in person and it's

It's because of the feel of the room and, you know, there are three councillors there

and we've got to come to the right decision.

And I find that it is easier when we're sitting next to each other

and we've got the feel of what we're all feeling.

Yeah.

As a sane energy never lies, so I don't know what more to say than that.

But if Mr. Flowers was reassuring us that we will still have the option to meet...

And I suppose we don't necessarily want the power for least resistance, but we do want to make it flexible,

that we can attend in the event that we would like to contribute to something and it's not possible to get to the town hall.

Same for applicants.

So if we are minded and there's no more further contributions for this agenda,

I would like for us to vote.

Okay, so there's my notes.

The Licence Committee is recommended to approve the recommendations

as detailed in paragraph one of the report.

Are we in favour?

Agreed. Fabulous.

That concludes the business of the committee.

Thank you for your attendance.

We shall now have a short pause before we start the meeting of the regulatory license

licensing subcommittee.

Thank you everybody.

Have a lovely evening.

Councillors, whilst we have you, just to let you know, it's likely the next count for

licensing committee will be meeting in October and that will be in person again

but officers will notify us so until then enjoy your summer stay hydrated

have more questions.

If I could just advise those attending remotely.

So we'll be considering the first application for SADAF

Express.

So if you're here for Sweet Tooth Cafe

and you're attending remotely, if I could just

ask you to remain muted for the time being.

Apologies again for the delay owing to an earlier meeting,

but we will be considering your application tonight

and you will have a chance to speak.

Thank you.

Good evening. Welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Subcommittee, which is being held

as a hybrid. This meeting is being webcast and please bear with us if there are any technical

issues. My name is Councillor French and I am chairing this meeting. I will now invite

the other attendees to introduce themselves in the following order. Councillors, officers,

applicants, representations. Councillors. Good evening I'm Councillor Davis.

Evening everyone I'm Councillor Humphries from the Southfields in Putney.

Guy Bishop the legal advisor to the subcommittee. I'm Caroline Sharkey licensing manager I'll

the report to you tonight, Chair.

The Democratic Senate says...

Applicants?

Mr Panchal representing

Mr Sadaf

for PLC UK Limited.

Representations?

We have no representations in the room, thank you.

Okay, Agendas Item 1 and 2. Are there any apologies for abstinence or

declarations of interest for any items on the agenda.

Thank you.

None have been noted.

Agenda item 4.

We will now consider the application for a new premises license in respect of the premises

known as SADAF Express, 7 Lower Richmond Road, London, SW15 1EJ and I now invite the licensing

Manager, Ms Sharkey, to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair. I'm mindful that you've read the report, so I'm just going to give

you the summary of the case that you have before you. So this is an application, Chair,

for a new premises licence and it's been submitted by Nahim Sadeghi. The application is for 7

in Lower Richmond Road. The premises are located in Thamesfield Ward. The activities applied

for, Chair, are for the sale of alcohol for consumption of the premises from 8am until

11pm, Sunday through to Thursday, and then from 8am until 1am, Fridays and Saturdays.

This is a new business, Chair. There's never been a premises licence at this site. This

This application was advertised by the applicant as required by law and this resulted in the

applicant agreeing additional conditions with the Metropolitan Police and this specifically

related to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder licensing objective and this included having

an incident log, no single cans to be sold, no open containers to be sold at the premises.

The license or the applicant has agreed some additional conditions with trading standards

for the prevention of children from harm as a licensing objective. And these include notices

being displayed at all points of sale,

relating to restricted products,

having a refusal log in place,

and some visual reminders at the points of sale

in terms of staff checking appropriate age checks,

and also in relation to appropriate training

regarding undertaking, sorry,

checking age restricted products.

After agreeing the conditions with the police and trading standards, the responsible authorities withdrew their representation.

No other representations were received from other responsible authority, but the licensing authority received two relevant representations from other persons.

and this way in relation to the prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and

disorder and protection of children from harm as the licensing objectives.

In relation to public nuisance, the concerns raised are in relation to the sale of alcohol

at these premises could lead to an increase in noise, litter, disorderly behaviour in

the area, particularly at night, which would affect residents.

and in relation to the sale also of alcohol at this premise it could contribute to an increase in crime and disorder and

antisocial behavior in the area

this could include public intoxication and other alcohol related issues and

Also concerns were raised regarding groups loitering in the area under the influence of alcohol

in relation to protection of children from harm

The concerns raised were children being exposed to the sale of alcohol, leading to an increase

in underage drinking.

Copies of all the representations received share have been distributed and made available

to the applicant and to the subcommittee tonight.

The applicant also proposed some measures in the operating schedule part of the application,

which could form as conditions of the licence if the members were minded to grant this application.

and these are produced as Appendix A to the report chair, they are on pages 8 to 9.

Members can modify these conditions if they consider such steps appropriate after hearing all the evidence tonight.

So tonight the subcommittee must take the following steps for promoting the licensing objectives

and this is either to grant the application as requested, modify the conditions of the

applications that are condition proposed by the applicant, or to reject the or part of

the application. This is the application as I understand it, Chair. I'm happy to answer

any points of clarifications or any questions at this stage. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Sharkey. Does the subcommittee have any questions for the licensing manager?

No? Thank you. I can see no questions from the subcommittee. Are there any other questions

of clarification on anything that has been stated? As a reminder, both the applicant

and there's no representations today, but the applicant will have the chance to address

the subcommittee and this should only be where you would like clarification on something stated by the speaker.

I can see no requests for questions of clarification.

I will now invite the applicant Manpreet Singh Kapoor, agent, Mr. Panchal, legal representative

Anayim Sagady, applicant, to address the subcommittee.

You will have five minutes to speak, after which questions may be asked of you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam.

Madam, you have heard from the licensed officer that we discussed the matters with the responsible

authorities and we have agreed conditions with the responsible authorities.

I am briefly going to go through how those licensing objectives are going to be robustly

promoted at the premises because we have got the agreement with the Metropolitan Police.

There will be a training manual at the premises and apart from the training manual, the CCTV

will be put up but there will be a notice put up for the CCTV warning that there is

CCTV at the premises by legal law.

That will cover that and the CCTV is going to be running 31 days as agreed with the police

and the metropolitan police.

The CCTV will be, the client could be able to download the images required by the responsible

authorities at any time when it is required.

The camera is also positioned in quite a robust place in the entrance of the premises to make

sure that the picture is correctly taken as required by the police.

Coming back to the public nuisance, ma 'am, there will be a process saying please leave

quietly, consider our neighbours to cover up the public nuisance and they will make

sure nobody is drinking outside the shop.

They will be asked to leave the premises as soon as they bought the alcohol.

There will be a Challenge 25 policy carried out at the premises and all the alcohol stores

will be labeled that we are following Challenge 25 policy.

Mr. Naeem does have a personal license and does understand the policy of Challenge 25.

There will also be a refusal book when incidents will be asked, the refusal will be in the

premises, so refusals will be noted down at the premises.

There will also be an incident book at the premises covering that up.

Apart from that, as we have always heard in the past, that you have a problem when you

employ people at the premises.

So there will be a right to work checklist.

Any people coming for employment or when Mr. Naeem Sandighe employs anybody, the first

thing he is going to be doing is to ask for the work checklist to make sure people have

the right to work in the country.

those documents will be attached in the training menu so the police or any responsible authority

could come in and have a look at that.

There will be an authorization of sale of alcohol under section 19 .2 and 19 .3 authorizing

the staff to sell alcohol by the DPS.

There will also be a section 57 notice which will indicate where the license is for the

responsible authorities to notify and there will be staff training.

So every three months the staff will be trained by the DPS and that will be logged.

So the responsible authorities will be able to look at that.

And there will be a small exam there when they are employed to carry out the exam to

make sure they understand the four licensing objectives.

Apart from that there are small booklets regarding the Licensing Act which is given to the staff

so they can have it and keep it with themselves.

So, ma 'am, this is how robustly the premises is going to be carrying on its duties at the

premises.

Ma 'am, I am now going to look at the objectors' views and one of the objectors, as you have

seen, has objected because he has got a shop in the area.

So it's on the 14 .19, the need is not something that this committee should decide on and it's

need that is good. Apart from that, we discussed about the four licensing objectives and I'm

happy to take any questions for the premises.

Thank you, Mr Kapoor. One minute, 15 seconds left, so thank you there.

You did very well, sir. Are there any requests or questions or clarification from the subcommittee?

Councillor Davis. Hello, thank you. I'd just like to understand a little bit more about

the nature of the business because I think that will inform my questions. Thank you.

It is more Lebanese fruits and vegetables and that and alcohol is going with it as a

subsidiary so it's not a large portion of alcohol to be displayed but as and when you

see these shops normally when people walk in they want to pick a bottle of wine or they

want to pick up a can of alcohol or so as a subsidy to make sure that all the groceries

will be the most important but the fruits and vegetables as you heard is very important

for them.

Any further questions?

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you Chair and thank you gentlemen for coming to see us tonight.

Congratulations on starting a new business.

I think that's the first thing to say. We wish you success with everything.

It's a new business, so perhaps we could hear a little bit about the applicant himself

and his experience in the industry, for example, so that we understand he's got a robust knowledge of the processes and everything.

I'll put it like this. He's had an experience of a grocery shop in the family,

and they've run the grocery shop from where else,

and they have now got this shop that they are now going to refurbish and make it more.

And that is what he has experienced. But he has experience and he has obtained his personal license

and understands the four licensing objectives. That's what I can say at the moment.

Please, Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, that's helpful. And you're going to be the DPS as well.

as well as, so I notice in the application you're resident in NW5 which is quite a long

way from SW15. Could you give us an indication of how much time you're anticipating spending

at the business property?

This is going to be his full -time business. So he's going to be on the premises full -time

from Monday to Sunday. So it is not something that he's going to leave alone. So he's going

to come into the business and it's going to be a full -time business.

Good luck with the commute over Putney Bridge at the moment. That's going to be a tough

one. And how many staff members will you be having at any one time?

He's going to employ three more staff which will have this put into different shifts opening

the shop. But he's expecting three more staff which will also, we've been instructed that

those three staffs will be having training with us at the personal because we run a training

firm also, under the BIIAB, so they will be having training with us before they start

their work.

I appreciate it's not a big shop, so you don't need a lot of staff at any one time, but if

you're the person behind the till, you've got good visibility of everything that's going

on inside and outside, yes?

Thank you, Councillor Davies.

I think my question is about because of the location of the business and again congratulations

on the new business, but it's in a town centre and I think it's quite valid concerns that

in the area there could be antisocial behaviour, there could be street drinking, whatever,

and obviously you wouldn't want to be involved or contributing to that in any way.

And so I do question whether the alcohol should actually be,

whether at eight in the morning is appropriate, if you like.

Partly thinking about the objection about reducing children from harm.

So, yeah, thank you.

There are two ways of looking at the licensing act.

If they were to start, say for example, I'm just giving an example, if they were to start

at 9 o 'clock and open the shop at 8 o 'clock, they will then need to have shutters everywhere

in the shop.

So what they're trying to avoid is they're not going to sell a lot of alcohol at 8 o 'clock

in the morning.

So they will be making sure that there's not much alcohol,

but people walking in, taking a bottle of wine or so,

that is what they anticipate.

But they don't anticipate anybody at eight o 'clock

to come in and buy cans of alcohol or that.

And they're gonna make sure that they understand,

he understands the area, so that's the main part about it.

Councilor Davies?

Yeah, and then, yeah, at the other end of the day,

So it's sort of at 2300 or midnight or one in the morning.

That's quite a late hour where people won't be doing

the household shop same or they will be looking to buy alcohol

to drink there and then probably.

But they're going to make sure that everybody's trained

thoroughly and to make sure that these late hours that they try

and make sure nothing happens at the shop.

And if they feel that it is not safe enough,

they will automatically reduce their hours.

They'll be sensible in doing that.

Thank you.

I had a question.

In your verbal submission, it stated

that the staff would be trained every three months.

I can't see that that's written anywhere.

Is that something that if we were to grant a license,

we would be putting in the conditions?

I just see it says all staff training records to be available, but I can't see where it

had actually stated for that renewal every three months.

What I meant to say that they will be trained first before their employment starts.

They will be trained in BIIAB level one.

And thereafter, the DPS will train the staff every three months sitting down with them

for one hour and making sure all the licensing objectives are understood and not forgotten.

and that will be recorded in the training menu to show to the small that every three

months we are sitting back.

So like refresher training?

Refresher training by the DPS, not by us.

So initially it will be done by us on BII level 1 and then it will be done every three

months in the book.

In the event your client would take an annual leave or go on holiday, what would happen

then?

There is, as I mentioned in my earlier, that there is an authorisation already there.

So all the staff will be authorised because he is not going to run all three shifts or

two shifts in the shop.

So there is an authorised staff who will be trained under the DPS and he will be responsible.

Thank you.

Any further questions from the Committee?

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, mindful of the representations we've had from the neighbour in one of the flats

nearby, will the applicant make every effort to be communicable with his neighbours and

such like, say there are any issues, they've got a phone number for example, or they know

how to get in touch with him to be able to deal with issues before anything escalates

or whatever?

Dr Prakash Narayanan, Chief Executive Officer, VNIC, India

Good, we'll be discussing that because I'm very glad to tell you that we were given the

opportunity by the licensing authority to contact the people and we did contact both

of them and we said we could sit down with you and work out whatever you, however you

want it but they were not very reluctant to come forward to it. We made the offer and

we are there to still make the offer because we would like them to come and shop at this

order so that's what we are understanding is but we did make the offer and we did approach

them.

And to anyone else that lives as a near neighbour rather than specifically just those people

that made objections, but yes that offer is hopefully open and visible to them as well.

I had one further question just about, you've mentioned mainly shoppers buying wine, will

you be selling spirits and any like high alcohol bear or those sorts of things or ciders?

Yes ma 'am, there will be spirits sold at the shop because there is a demand for the spirits.

And in terms of the cans of beer?

The miniatures?

Not miniatures but the alcohol content of those?

Some of them I don't know, I don't drink beer myself so I just make that a question.

But like 6 % or high levels of alcohol in those.

I'm not concerned, my thinking is, it's not a concern I have to say.

It's just about potential street drinking and cheap alcohol,

because not everyone can afford a bottle of wine,

but some people can afford one pound, 52 pounds on this strong cider

and stuff like that.

So just wanting to know if you'd thought about in terms of stock intake,

what the level of alcohol for those more cheaper,

more accessible items would be.

Yeah. Ma 'am, I'm dealing with a lot of licenses.

Lucky man.

Thank you.

And what I sometimes now, listening to a lot of these licensed shops, is they do not want

the street drinkers.

They do not want a problem in the shop because there is a lot of problem in the shop.

Running off license is not very easy and they do not want.

So hence they try to make sure that they do not sell it to the street drinkers as well

as they try and make sure we are not very strong alcohol is sold.

So that's always looked into that.

But that's considering when the shop is open to look at how the area is and how the response is when it comes to selling alcohol, when the shop is open.

Yeah, I think that, thank you for that, and it is important to reflect as you open and operate in your local area, but I suppose the privilege of being council is that we know our, we know the borough,

And we understand that street drinking can be a problem and accessibility to cheap alcohol

can be a problem.

And we're minded as elected officials to be prudent in making decisions, not just kind

of waiting to see what happens, but using our local data and local knowledge to ensure

that we minimize any risks.

So that's not to prejudice our decision, but just to highlight that those are sorts of

things that we consider when we are granting licenses, is the accessibility of cheap alcohol.

In this instance we did discuss a lot with the police before we agreed the conditions

and those conditions were laid out by the police considering the area and everything.

Thank you.

Any further questions from the subcommittee?

Okay.

As we do not have any representations in person, I'll just say that being the prudent councillors

that we are, we will ensure that we take note of the representations that were submitted

via writing. Now I'll invite you, sir, on behalf of the applicant to provide any closing

remarks that you'd like to submit. This should be a maximum of two minutes. I will first

invite those making representations, followed by the applicant. There is no representation.

So, sir, thank you.

Thank you very much, ma 'am. I've said enough. I've laid out enough and I don't think I have

anything more to say, but I request the committee to grant the license. Thank you.

Thank you for that very concise submission, sir. That concludes this part of the meeting.

The decision reasons and any legal guidance given during the subcommittee's discussion

that has informed the decision, their decision, will be confirmed in writing, together with

information about any rights of appeal within five working days. Members of the licensing

subcommittee, the Democratic Services Officer and Legal Advisor will now join the separate

confidential meeting room to make the decision. We will be doing that because we have another

application afterwards. So I'd just like to draw this meeting for the first application

to a conclusion and wish you a farewell. Have a lovely evening. You are here from us via

the means that we've already stated. Thank you.

So anybody online, we're just preparing for the second herring.

So thank you for your patience.

Bear with us.

If anybody would like a short refreshments break

or to visit the convenience rooms, please do so now.

Thank you.

And if I could just ask anyone who's in attendance remotely, we will be starting shortly.

If you are able to put your cameras on, that would be helpful.

But if you could just keep your microphones muted until you're invited to speak by the chair.

And the chair would invite you to speak after those in person have spoken just to assist with the management of business.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody.

Special thank you because I know that there was a previous application, so if you've been

and we thank you for your patience, both online and in the room.

Welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Subcommittee, which is being held as a hybrid meeting.

This meeting is being webcast, and please bear with us if there are any technical issues.

My name is Councillor French, and I am chairing this meeting.

I will now invite the other attendees to introduce themselves in the following order.

We'll start within the room, and then we'll go online.

So online people, please just patiently be with us until everyone in the room has introduced themselves

councillors

Yes, good evening, I'm a councillor Davis for Wandsworth town walls

Evening everyone. I'm councillor guy Humphries a councillor for Southfield in Putney

Guy Bishop legal legal advisor to the licensing subcommittee

Good evening, Jay, it's Caroline sharky licensing manager. I'll be presenting the report to you tonight

Good evening, Chair.

Stuart Gibson, licensed consultant representing the applicant.

Maya Dragovich, owner of the Sweetwood Cafe.

Representations.

If you could just pull the mic and you press the button so you should have said middle

one.

My name is Elizabeth Ellams.

I'm a local resident.

And then just press the button please, Mr. Ellens.

Thank you.

That's okay.

No, no, no forgiveness there.

We should make these things much more accessible.

Thank you.

You've done it.

Charlotte Williams, a resident.

Thank you.

And then Mr. Flowers, would you?

Michael Flowers, Democratic Service Officer and Clerk for the meeting.

Okay.

Now going online.

We could start with representations, please.

Hi, I'm Connor, local resident.

I'm Matthew, local resident.

I'm John, local resident.

Matthew, can you repeat your name just for clarity?

My name is Matthew Prigmore.

Mr and Mrs Hogworth.

Hi Paul Hogarth and Kate Hogarth.

And we are also local residents of Orland Court.

You're muted Mr Newby.

Walker can't hear you. Sorry.

Still can't. I think headstate might not be connected.

Sorry, can you hear me? Yes, we can now. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I'm Bob Newby Walker. I'm a senior

Is that everyone has Mr. Conroy?

Hello, I'm Guy Conroy, local resident.

I'd like to thank you all for being with us this evening.

Moving on to Agendas 1 and items 1 and 2. Are there any apologies for absence or

declaration of interest for any items on the agenda?

Thank you. Moving on to Agenda Item 4.

We will now consider the application for a new premises license in respect of the premises known as Sweet Tooth Cafe.

That's on 275 Upper Richmond Road, London, SW 15 6 SP.

And I now invite the licensing manager, Ms Sharkey, to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm mindful you've read the paperwork in front of you, so I'm just going to give you a summary

of the report and some pertinent points.

So this is an application for a premises license which is applied for in the name of Alexandra

34 Limited and it is for a premises known as the Sweet Tooth Cafe as you see here on

275 Upper Richmond Road.

The premises are located in West Patney.

The activities applied for are for the sale of alcohol for consumption both on and off

the premises between 11 a .m. until 11 p .m. Sunday through to Thursday and 11 a .m. until

1 a .m. on Fridays and Saturdays. The applicant has also applied for late night refreshments,

that's the selling of hot food and drinks between 11 p .m. and 11 .30 p .m. Sunday through

to Thursday and 11pm to 1 .30am Fridays and Saturdays. This is an existing premises chair

and it has operated a licence at this site since August 2021 but the licence lapsed because

the licence order at the time went into liquidation and they didn't apply for a transfer as required

by law you are supposed to apply for a transfer within 28 days of the premises going into

liquidation. So consequently the licence lapsed and now the applicant, the same licence holder,

is applying for a new premises licence with a new company name. The application was advertised

as required under the law and this resulted in the applicant agreeing some conditions with trading

standards in relation to the protection of children from harm as a licensing objective.

These are detailed under paragraph five of the committee report chair.

The environmental health section noise and nuisance team also made a representation to

this application chair.

They have raised concerns that they are currently dealing with resident complaints and also

the fact that the applicant has applied for longer hours than they previously had on the

premises licence.

Therefore representation share is produced in the bondo and pages 57 to 58 of the agenda.

trading standards withdrew their representations when the applicant agreed the conditions

and the licensing authority did not receive any other representations from responsible authorities.

But the licensing authority chair received 20 representations from other persons,

most of them residents, who have raised concern that the public nuisance

and crime and the prevention of crime and dissolved licensing objectives would be undermined

if this license were to be granted. The concerns that have been raised are from the late night

drinking, noise disturbance from customers arriving and leaving late at the Promises,

loud music, antisocial behaviour, increased incidents of crime and the licensing authority

chair did receive a petition in support of the application. This has been collated by

the applicant. All the representations received were forwarded to the applicant and also available

to the subcommittee tonight. The applicant chair has also proposed some measures to promote

the licensing objectives if the subcommittee were minded to grant this application. And

these conditions are produced in Appendix A of the report on pages 37 to 39 of the agenda.

The Licensing Subcommittee may modify these conditions if they consider such steps appropriate

after hearing all the evidence tonight. So the options available to the Subcommittee

tonight are to consider appropriate steps for promoting the licensing objectives and

These are either to grant the application as requested, to modify the conditions that

have been proposed by the applicant if they are minded to grant the application, or to

reject the whole application or part of the application.

Now this is the application.

As I understand it, Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions or any points of clarification

at this stage.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Sharkey.

Owing to the number of representations received and to assist with the smooth management of

the meeting, I am proposing that speaking time be set at three minutes per speaker.

The applicant will continue to have the total speaking time of all representations in attendance

at the meeting.

I would remind parties that their written representations have been noted.

We've not just noted them, but we've read them.

Verbal statements should focus on any new comments people want to provide.

Does the subcommittee have any questions for the licensing manager, Councillor Davies?

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a quick one.

I just wanted to confirm with Ms Sharkey that we haven't had any representations from the

Metropolitan Police on this application.

Thank you, Chair.

As I stated earlier, metropolis did object initially, but the applicant agreed some conditions

and they are not making any representations to the application.

Thank you for the clarification, Ms Sharkey.

I can see no further questions from the subcommittee at this moment.

Are there any other questions of clarification on anything that has been stated?

As a reminder, both the applicant and the representations will have a chance to address

the subcommittee and this should only be where you would like clarification on something

stated by Ms. Sharkey.

I'm just going to turn my head online to see if there's anything.

Nope, nobody online, thank you.

I can see no request for questions of clarification.

I will now invite the applicant Alex.

Sorry, sorry.

I should try to put my hand up.

No, go for it.

Thank you.

If it isn't working, please feel free to turn your mics off and get our attention.

So go ahead.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Yeah, just within what you said, there was no particular clarification of timings for

live music.

That would be good to know if there's anything in the licensing application that has any

limitation on timings for live music because we're dealing with a one -room cafe about 10

by 10 where all the music is projected outwards and there's nothing in the what we've said about

you know if there's a cut -off time for live music proposed. Thank you Ms. Sharkey. Thank you chair,

I'm just checking the application my understanding is live music is not applied for but for for legal

I have some additional advice and I'm sure my colleague will expand on this, but, Chair,

live music between 8 a .m. and 11 p .m. is considered as deregulated in any premises that is licensed

to sell alcohol for consumption of the premises.

So the premises, if they were licensed, they could provide live music between 8 a .m. and

11pm without needing a license but that doesn't mean that they have to cause a statutory nuisance

because that if they cause a statutory nuisance then Environmental Health Services officers

in the noise and nuisance team would take action under the Environmental Protection Act 1991. So

whilst it's deregulated they wouldn't still be able to provide libraries if they're causing

noise nuisance. Does that help? Thank you. So just it was very much in layman

terms but I think I'm going to be a bit more plain English. They didn't have to apply

for that because it's deregulated. However, should they be playing music in between the

times of 8 o 'clock and did you say 11pm? 11pm and it's causing a nuisance.

And it's causing a nuisance. There are, there's levers that can be drawn on for them to be

reprimanded should it so be necessary. Mr Bishop, anything to coming on those legal

advisors or has it been sufficiently answered by Ms Sharkey?

Does that clarify Mr Hogarth? Yes, fully clarified. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. As there are no further questions of clarification, I now invite the applicant,

Alexander, 34, limited, represented by Major Dzerovnik, excuse my pronunciation, to address

the subcommittee and you will have five minutes to speak, three.

Okay, so 26 minutes now?

Yeah, if needed, sorry.

Just for clarification, because we have to calculate the numbers of people that are representing

objecting, then that becomes the number that the applicant is allowed to speak for.

So in case you're thinking how do we arrive at that number and why have I said one number

and then retracted, I just want to be clear that we've had a headcount and the parity

and fairness, that's the number.

So he will have up to 26 minutes to speak, after which questions may be asked of you.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Stuart Gibson, and you'll be very glad to know I don't propose to take 26 minutes

of your time in a submission. You've heard the application outlined this

evening. One point just to to clarify the licenseable activity of the sale of

alcohol ceases at 11 o 'clock Sunday to Thursday and 1 o 'clock on Friday and

Saturday. The premises will close 30 minutes after those licenseable activity

times end so people will have 30 minutes to finish their drink and leave.

Slightly different on late night refreshment because late night

refreshment is provided right up until closing time but that's really I guess

to allow customers to have a cup of coffee very late in the evening before

they head off home as you know it's not only hot food that is licensed well

after 11 o 'clock it is hot drink as well so just to give you an idea on the

closing times of the actual building so the building will be locked up at 1130

and 130 respectively as you've heard we've got one responsible authority

objection from environmental health and various residential objections submitted

some are relevant some are not which I will I will go through just to bear in

mind and I think it's important because when you read the representations you

can shut your eyes and get a very different picture of what is being

proposed here this is an application for a cafe selling a full range of home

cooked meals during the day and tapas dishes and burgers in the evening with

selection of alcoholic and soft drinks. That's the statement that is in the

actual application. It's worth reminding yourselves that that's what we actually

hear to discuss. Food will be available at all times. The premises are open. The

premises has been operating recently under temporary event notes and notices

in conjunction with the licensing authority and apart from what we got at

end from a 7th of June incident there have been no complaints registered that

I'm certainly aware of and that I've been made aware of by the Licensing

Authority there have been no noise complaints during these temporary event

notices save for most recent. Turning if I may just I said earlier there are some

representations that are not relevant and I just want to to clarify that very

helpful clarification from the officer regarding deregulated entertainment. One

of the reps says loud music has been played. Now what we need to understand is

the temporary events and the actual license applied for this evening are not

the same. The temporary events were applied for, I guess there was music

involved and so forth. You've heard what the application going forward

long term is, it's purely for the sale of alcohol and late night refreshment. So

the threat of loud music being late at night and so forth just doesn't exist. As

As you've heard, they are entitled to have live and recorded music until 11 o 'clock at night without a licensed permission,

but also they must fall within not causing the statutory nuisance as you've heard.

So a matter for you this evening is not necessarily to consider regulated entertainment, because we've not asked for that.

And there wouldn't be a condition you could place on a license that says you will not play recorded music at 8 p .m., because you can't enforce it.

The Licensing Act doesn't allow you to do so. That would have to come out under a statutory nuisance under the

The relevant act of 1990. It's also worth reminding you that the business will be closed and locked at the very latest at

1 .30. We go on to hear that there are

representations there will be disturbances later than 1 .30. Well, there won't because it's locked up and everyone's gone home

going forward. This is what we're applying for.

We're also told this could set a precedent for other retailers. I'm not quite sure how to answer

that other than so what. I don't mean that in a flippant way, I mean that in every single

application is judged on its own merits. So if somebody down the road decided they would like

to apply for a 2 a .m. license, no doubt they'd be here before you as a committee and you would have

the opportunity to consider that on an individual basis. The fact that one premises may be fortunate

enough to be granted such a license doesn't open the floodgates for anybody

else so it's not a relevant representation as such. Somebody else

tells us there'll be a license until 2 a .m. well we know that's not true.

Somebody else tells us that music reverberates through their pillow but

they won't in this case because we're not applying for regulated entertainment

and as we've already said many times before that there is measures in place

under different acts to deal with unsuitable noise from a premises but

it's not the Licensing Act. And others say we're applying for a license for

entertainment. Well we haven't. There is no entertainment being applied for.

Before I come on to the actual conditions of actual representations

that have been made and answer them, I think it's worthwhile just to at this

point offer some additional conditions that the applicant would like you to

consider. Conditions that don't appear in the application form, so these are new,

and it's worth considering with a view to reading the representations made by the local residents

and taking into account their concerns.

And the applicant is very keen to work with the local community

because after all the local community is her customers in many respects as well.

And the first one we would like to propose is this.

The outside area, which raises some concern amongst objectives,

the outside area will be closed at 2300 hours maximum time.

So there'll be no one o 'clock sitting outside drinking,

causing noise.

Even if they're not intending to cause noise,

just people talking outside and so forth

can cause a disturbance.

So that'll be closed and shut down at 2 ,300 hours.

The capacity outside, if you're really pushing it,

and I mean really pushing it, people sort of sitting very

close together, you could get maybe 25 people.

You're more likely to get 15 sitting outside.

And it's also worth pointing out that one of the conditions that

were offered in the operating schedule is that everyone must be seated and

there's nobody and all drinks are served basically to the tables, way to

service. So there's no showing up at the bar stood at the bar buying a

drink. If you want to drink it will be brought to you at a table. If you can't

sit down you can't come in basically. It's seated and or nothing. There's

concerns about people smoking. Now we propose that there would be a maximum of

five smokers at any one time after 11 o 'clock. I say that because it'd be

pointless trying to restrict the number of smokers before 11 o 'clock when the

outside area is open. The reason for restricting smokers is to curtail the

noise and to be honest you very rarely find a premises, especially a

premises of such a small capacity as this, where you have five people smoking

at any one time. It's not like it was 15 -20 years ago. But five smoking at any one

time outside the premises. They cannot take drinks with them when they go out to

smoke. Windows and doors will be closed after 11 o 'clock except for access and

egress. There will also be a soundproof curtain installed at the front of the

cafe, so as you go in at the front there'll be a soundproof curtain put there for

the benefit of if the premises do have any kind of music before 11 o 'clock. So

it's limiting the sound that will escape from the premises out into the street.

It's worth mentioning we're on a very busy road here. I sat outside this

premises last week for a good hour and a half and the amount of traffic that goes

up and down that road is quite considerable so you do have a lot of

background noise going on anyway. Sorry? That I was there?

Soundproof curtain will be at any point in time when there is entertainment before 11 o 'clock provided.

So I can't give you a time, it won't say from 5 o 'clock or whatever, it might only be from 8 o 'clock because that's maybe when it starts.

But if there is anything, it'll go from, the soundproof curtain will be there.

And finally, there is a point to make in terms of the environmental health objection, which I will come on to in full.

but it's an additional condition that we're willing to offer in that the

applicant will carry out a sound survey, a noise survey by a recognized noise

technician to advise on what additional noise measure or noise prevention

measures are required at the premises. Once that has been done it will be

submitted to the Environmental Health Officer who I can see up to my left here

for his approval and once his approval is given the works will be carried out

once the works is carried out no doubt we will invite Mr. Newby Walker down to

confirm the works have been carried out and once all that has been done then the

premises should be allowed to trade and we're quite happy for that to be made a

condition should you be willing to grant today. There is no reason or no feeling

within the applicant that they're trying to just open up and make noise that's

not the case. They want to work with the current residents. Adding to that, as I said, the

current conditions already are on the operating schedule. No vertical drinking, so nobody

stood up to drink. Have to be sat down and wait a service only. I think you get the picture

of the type of operation we have here. It's a particularly small venue if you've been

or a lot of people have been. So in that respect, limited on capacity, so people have to be

sat down, if they can't sit down they can't come in, so you're not looking at

like hundreds of people converging on these premises on any evening of the

week. Now coming on to the relevant representations that we have, as I've

said, disturbance from smokers. There's a concern that smokers will cause a

disturbance. Five maximum any one time after 11 o 'clock and would drinks taken

outside should alleviate that concern. There's a concern about

disturbance of those leaving? Well first of all we have a low capacity to begin

with. There will be a dispersal policy and should people wait, for example should

people be looking for a taxi home they can wait inside until the taxi comes

along taxi for Jones and out come three people get into the taxi for Jones and

away they go. We don't leave people out in the street to chat to each other

thinking they're being quite respectable and not causing a problem but chatting

to each other at five past one in the morning can cause a bigger nuisance in

noise than they believe they are doing. So allowing them to wait inside to be

for the taxi to come and away they go. To keep any noise disturbance to an

absolute minimum. Many clients congregating outside, well I've just

spoken about that earlier on today. At very very best you'd get 25 people in

that outside area up to 11 o 'clock but you're probably looking at about 15. They

have to be seated as waiter service and it's closed at 11 o 'clock. We're taking

away a lot of the threats that people may have had in their application when

they made their representation thinking oh dear we don't want one o 'clock

bedlam going on here you're not going to get that. There's also some claims of

crime and disorder and an antisocial behavior in the area. That's a strange

one for me because the question was raised somebody I think you sir raised

that the police make an objection well no they didn't and I've been doing this

too long to know that if there was a hint of crime and disorder and

antisocial behavior, the Metropolitan Police would be sat here quite happily

raising their, raising their voice. There was no need for them to get involved in

this application so they don't believe it to be an area of concern and

therefore I would suggest a counsellor says neither should you as police evidence

is given great weight in these type of applications. So coming on to the

environmental health concern.

And I guess there's two concerns that we have to consider, and I'll touch on them both.

We had a concern from the 7th of June where apparently at four minutes past one,

during a temporary event, event, event the premises had,

there were apparently 12 people in the premises, not being particularly rowdy,

not behaving badly, and that's the words of the Environmental Health Officer.

they were just being normal. But the noise could be heard in the flat above

and that's where he's raised a concern as to noise insulation. It is worth

pointing out however and this again would be a matter for you as committee

members. The lady to my right has been running this business in trading for the

past eight years. For the past four years she's had no complaints. We have two

residents who move in two months ago and suddenly it's the worst place on earth

to live and complaints are following complaints. Now tell me I'm wrong but

surely when people move into a new place they know what's below them and it seems

to me a case of let's move in and change the framework of what's been going on

for the last X amount of years in an area because we don't like it. It's not

something I'm saying is directly related to this but you will have heard the

government proposals quite recently where they are looking to reinvigorate

town centres and city centres with the nighttime economy especially in the city

and certainly Mr. Khan has been given the license to call in some

applications and reverse decisions that have been made because too much weight

has been placed on residential concerns of supposed noise and it's something I

would ask that you consider when you look at this application. These people

should, will have known exactly what was below them when they moved in. And

by that I am not saying that a statutory nuisance is acceptable, of course I'm not,

but I'm saying there needs to be a bit of give -and -take on both sides. Now in

terms of the second environmental health concern, unfortunately that arrived today

Due to a complaint, I believe, that took place on Friday evening.

It's just unfortunate that perhaps this could not have been made available yesterday, so

we would have had proper time to consider it.

But to issue it at half past one on the day of the hearing, when I for one was just leaving

the house to go to a train station to come down to London, isn't particularly helpful.

What I would say on this, that there is a comment that a noise abatement notice is to

issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That may well happen,

I don't know. That's a matter for the officer. But it shouldn't affect your

decision on the license. That is being dealt with under other legislation.

There is no need for Licensing Act to get involved and the Licensing Act is

very clear on this, that it shouldn't interfere with other legislation where

other legislation exists. So fire legislation exists. Let the fire

legislation deal with fire problems. Let noise abatement be dealt with under the

correct legislation. To add something to this as a premises license I think is

wrong. That said, you've already heard that the applicant wants to work

with the authorities and said we will get all this done. We want to be

compliant, we want to be responsible, we don't want to cause trouble, so we will

take the advice of the officer. But to add this as any more detrimental

conditions or use it as a reason to refuse the application, I would say is

wrong because it's already been dealt with under other legislation. In any

event, the premises would have to comply with a noise abatement notice otherwise

they would face separate prosecutions. So you have comfort in that, that they

cannot just bypass it and ignore it if you don't take action on it yourselves.

There's no need for you to do that. It's already being dealt with.

Councillors, that is what I've got to say on the application.

We have, as you've seen in the papers, a number of supportive signatures,

an awful lot of supportive signatures from people who are very much in favour of these premises.

And it's easy to see when you get 20 objections that this is a terrible premises, nobody likes it because 20 people have objected.

well there's over a hundred and something that have said no we love this

place and I think there needs to be a balance taken into account I've given

you additional conditions that the applicant is willingly volunteered

they've not been forced out of her she's been willingly happily to say yes we can

do this we want to work with the community we want to serve the community

and be this communal hub that they seem to have become where a lot of people

come along the amount of people that walk past the day that I was there last

week who just walked in to say hello to this lady and give her a hug and walk away was

quite telling.

It's a very friendly place, it's a very popular place and I would ask that you grant the application

as we've applied.

Thanks very much for your time and I told you it wouldn't take 26 minutes.

There's about 17.

Thank you for your submission there, sir.

Just in points of a clarification before I go to the subcommittee, Mr Bishop, I know

something was raised just in the submission about the noise nuisance or something that

was related to advice. I think before we ask questions, it would be good to have a point

of clarification from you. Thank you.

I'm not sure what the question is.

The question was for the environmental noise. The late submission yesterday that I believe

may have been an objection and was raised by the applicant for parity and fairness because

I believe it wasn't included in the bundle.

So I think it's important that you just address

from a legal perspective why that was not there.

Thank you.

The normal procedure is for a document being submitted

within 24 hours of a hearing, it would be for the committee

to consider whether to allow that to be considered

by the committee in reaching its decision.

That normally has the involvement of the applicant

and their approval.

Obviously, you've raised it.

Sorry?

And obviously you raised it.

I suspect that the noise officer will address that now that you've raised it.

And I wouldn't necessarily have to say anything further than that at this stage.

Thank you for the clarification.

I just know that as a subcommittee I don't think we were cited on it,

so I didn't want any curveballs or for there to just be parity

on why we weren't necessarily going to raise questions about it.

Thank you.

So my colleagues on the subcommittee, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Jen.

Thank you, folks, for coming to talk to us tonight.

Just one point of clarification before we go further.

Thank you for those additional suggested conditions, which I think are helpful.

There was one you were referring to about the capacity outside, which I didn't quite

understand.

because you mentioned 25 and you also mentioned 15.

So are you suggesting a ceiling on the cap

on the maximum number of people that can be outside?

And if so, what was that number?

It's a very small space outside.

And looking at it last week,

there were seats for 15 people when I was there.

And that was comfortable.

Speaking to my issues, oh, possibly we could,

if I push, we could get 25.

I think 25 is pushing it,

but you would be adding another 10 seats

and a couple of tables to a pretty small space.

And if you did that, moving around would be more difficult.

If you're looking for a capacity number, I would say,

split it down the middle and say a maximum of 20 would be

suitable.

Maximum of 20.

My has seen yes.

But at the time I was there, there was 15, and it was quite

comfortable.

Yes, I'm not suggesting any.

It's up to you.

But if that's what you're proposing, great.

Thank you.

It was just a definitive number, whatever that was.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Obviously, a lot of the complaints and objectors

are raising issues about the later hours.

Obviously, that's more of an issue for people

when it gets later at night.

And we understand the reasonableness of that.

I understand in your previous license,

you didn't have those late hours.

It was just until 11 or 11 .30.

So perhaps you could explain a little bit

why you think those extra hours are necessary for the business and how that's going to,

how you're going to have any, what difference you'll make to your operating schedule or

whatever, besides what you've already said, taking that on board with those late hours,

because that's obviously the particular bone of contention with residents when it's later

at night.

And the later hours is to give, I guess, the premises and the business a little bit more

flexibility to stay open later should they wish.

The fact that they've got asking for one o 'clock Friday and Saturday doesn't mean you'll stay

be the need. But what it does allow the business to do, and in the long term it walks out more

economical to have it on your actual licence rather than coming back every now and then

frequently 15 times a year, cap in hand to the council saying please can I have a temporary

event, and there's no surety. You may have six temporary events and all granted, the

seventh one comes along and this gentleman up in the corner says no I object to that

and we have a problem. So they can't necessarily plan ahead. So having it on the actual licence

gives them that surety to be able to do and run their business as the CFIT.

But to say they're going to be open until one every single Friday, Saturday, 52 weeks

of the year isn't going to happen.

It's just there to use if indeed they need it.

And that's why they look for the extra hours.

Councillor Davies.

Yeah, I think I'd just like to follow up on that.

So you know, within your business panel anticipation, how often do you think that you would be using

those extended hours?

Is the same as like how was before,

one or twice a month, not more than that?

That's maximum.

And you mentioned about limiting smokers outside to five

and I'm probably showing myself up to be ignorant here

but I haven't, maybe I'm not a smoker,

but do you have an example of how that happened?

How does that happen?

How do you place the restriction on people?

As I said in my submissions, before 11 o 'clock,

you can't enforce it, because you could have 15, 20 people

sat outside anyway at 10 o 'clock.

And you can't say to 15, 20 people, only five

or you can smoke at any one time.

That's not what it's there for.

What it's there for is to reduce any noise disturbance

potentially from people who are inside coming outside.

So once the outside area is closed down, and as I've said in submissions again,

doors and windows will be closed and only for access and egress, there would

be a member of staff limiting to say, no, I'm sorry, you can't go out, there's

already five people out smoking, you'll have to wait, if that is what it comes to.

In reality, five people smoking at any one time is pushing it away, but it doesn't

really happen that much, especially as they can't take drinks out with them and

so forth, it wouldn't be, it's not a continuation of a social gathering, if

like.

Effectively it would be one of the staff working out whether there's five or not at any one

time.

Any further questions from the subcommittee?

Thank you, not at the moment.

Okay, so in terms of the next step, I think I'm just going to address the room first and

then I'll turn to the screen, save me, swivel in.

Are there any questions of clarification on anything that has been stated as a reminder?

The representations will have a chance to address the committee and this should only

be where you would like clarification on something stated by the applicant.

So it's a clarification rather than an interrogation?

Yep, please.

Thank you.

Am I right in you saying there haven't been any complaints in the last four years?

Did you say that?

I might be wrong.

Thank you, sir.

If you'd like to come back.

What I said from, we were talking about the flat above.

From the flat above?

Okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to check from a legal point, though, Mr Bishop.

This is a new license and so if there had been noise nuisance from four years ago, would

that be something that you would consider because of it being a new license for this

particular business?

You're going to carry out a committee?

Thank you.

School Boyera, as a committee you are going to carry out a balancing exercise to work

out which way you go in terms of making your decision in promoting the licensing objectives.

And as part of that you will consider the application and the representations in the

round.

you might think that something that happened four years ago is a long time ago.

Similarly, you might be more interested in what's happened very recently or in the last month or two.

So it's for you to consider.

Thank you for that timely reminder. Thank you for the clarification as well.

One minute, Ms. Ellen, because I think you're going there.

Thank you, one minute. Just stay there.

Can I just say that I've lived and had my home in Ormond Court for 56 years. I've been

very happy there, very peaceful there. I'm now an old lady. I wanted to say, and I think

This is very relevant.

The clarification...

On the first occasion when there was a very loud noise...

I don't want to come across rude, but there has to just be a clarification for the applicant.

So at this point, you will have an opportunity to speak later.

But at this point, it's just if he has said anything that is unclear that needs further elaboration or clarification,

I guarantee you, ma 'am, that you have an opportunity to have your three minutes in a second, okay?

No, no need to apologize. I know that these...

You're forgiven, you're forgiven, and thank you for being here, okay? So just take it easy.

I'll make sure we come to you and you'll have your full three minutes. Thank you.

I'm gonna turn online because I think there was a question for clarification online.

Mr. Hogarth?

Yes, sorry to sound ungrateful for asking me a question, but can I just say it's Mr.

Hogarth.

Sorry, Hogarth.

That's okay, no worries.

My clarification, please, is could they clarify, please, the size of the outside space in square

footage, you know, 10 by 10?

because I'm trying to get my head around 25 people sitting

in that area.

So if they could just clarify the actual size of that space

so that the licensing committee would be able to make

some sort of calculation as square footage per person

sitting outside on the frontage, please.

Thank you, Mr. Hogarth.

Just for clarification, I think it was stated

that they had said there'd be a maximum of 20 now.

Is that what was I believe it had gone from 25 and Councillor Humphries adults for specific number

Obviously, that's what the applicants telling you in terms of the capacity. They think they can achieve

What he's asked what was to go off is asking is the size of the area? Yeah

Please to be perfectly honest. I couldn't honestly tell you the exact number. I'd be guessing I don't have that number

Could I further ask them because the gentleman was there last week all night

Can you give us a rough estimate

as you were there watching all night,

the particular size,

because I'd like to be able to calculate

the amount of space each of the 20 or 25 people

would have for sitting outside

as before I had my three minutes,

or six minutes as the two of us

to put our points across, please.

Thank you, Mr. Hogarth.

Yep.

Just, Councillors, under subcommittee, are you referring to a document there just in...

There's a plan.

So there's a plan on what page is the plan?

Page 75 of the bundle contains a plan and it has the measurements included.

Mr Hogarth, do you have the bundle in front of you, because that may answer your question.

I'm afraid I don't. Okay, thank you Councillor Davies. Yes, so if I sit right, my eyesight's not so good, but it's three in depth by probably, we don't have the measurements wide.

Oh, we do have it up there.

So...

No, but that's not the whole area.

Yeah.

It's probably about three by four.

Sorry, clarify three by four metres?

Yes.

Okay, three by four metres.

Okay.

So 12 square metres for the outdoor space.

That's approximate.

So we as councillors haven't visited the premises, so we are going by the bundle and the plan

that spinning included. Oh, sir, he does know the premises.

Just to clarify, for the 25 people that's bus tables and chairs, half a square metre

per person. Just to clarify.

Thank you for that clarification there. Are there any other clarifications? No? Okay,

thank you. Hold on, sorry, I need to turn more. Mr Prigmore, sorry, I need to turn.

No, I apologise, I put my hand up just after you said that.

So just to clarify, there's going to be no outside drinking after 11 o 'clock on any night?

So we've changed it, is that right?

Correct.

Okay, fine.

Originally it was to 1 o 'clock, wasn't it?

So we have changed it.

Well, outside, I think the licence is till 1 o 'clock but they've now put a condition

in that there will be no outside drinking past 11 o 'clock but the premises will be,

if we are so minded, to grant the license eligible to be selling alcohol up until one

o 'clock to be consumed inside until one o 'clock.

Okay, because that's what I wanted clarification on because I was obviously worried about the

outside barrier but thank you for that and thank you for the change in the licensing

and the hours of outside. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. can I kindly ask you just to lower your raised hand so I don't get confused. Thank you.

I'm going to go to I'm going to now just go to Mr. McMillan, sorry, McMullan in the bottom

corner because he hasn't contributed yet. So would you like to come in with a point of clarification?

Yeah, basically, I've just been brought attention to the floor plan there. And if I'm correct, is

is that an outdated floor plan of the interior?

Cause I believe the bar area is much,

it's not, it's just much different on the plans

and what it is inside.

So the clarification is, is this an updated plan?

Because it doesn't.

Is that a current floor plan?

Is this the current as it, the premises is today?

It's the same.

So there has been no changes. This is as it is.

The bar has been changed, nothing else. They're all the same.

Please turn your microphone on, ma 'am.

I said bar has been changed, nothing else. So there was like this, now it's like that.

And all position and everything is the same inside.

So this plan is slightly different in terms of the position of the bar?

Yeah, bar only. Yes, only bar.

It's moved differently to the way it's on the plan?

The rest hasn't been changed, hasn't been touched.

Councillor Davies.

Sorry, I'm away, there's people online.

Just to clarify that point, so when you say the bar, are we talking about this bit that's

coming out?

So it's going along here?

Yes.

So that's thicker?

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt.

If it's acceptable to the councillors,

we'd be happy to submit an updated plan

to the committee, to the authority,

should you be able to grant this license

to reflect how it actually is laid out,

if there's a slight change to the bar, no problem.

That would be most appreciated, thank you.

Mr. Hogarth?

Yes, sorry, it's a bit of pain to just.

Oh, you're not a pain, no pain, thank you for being here.

question. In answer to Mr. Prigmore's query where he asked for clarification about no

outside drinking at all after 11 o 'clock on any night, we've clarified that that's the

case. We also heard earlier that all doors and windows would be shut at all times after

that time. I just want to check that's the case regardless of the weather and obviously

if there's any loud music, there'll be a soundproof curtain across there as well.

Let's clarify that the doors will be shut after 11 o 'clock and not opened

regardless of weather conditions and if there's any music being played,

live music, then there'll also be a heavy soundproof curtain across the door.

Thank you. Applicant?

Just again to clarify, there cannot be any live or recorded music after 11 o 'clock anyway

and what we said is correct, after 11 o 'clock doors, windows closed, access egress only.

Sound curtain would be pre -11 o 'clock because we can't have any live or recorded music after 11 o 'clock.

And the door will be open obviously to allow people out to smoke because there will be access egress, sorry.

Plain layman terms for me, in and out, but access egress. I've learnt something new today.

Any further clarifications from anybody online?

Okay, thank you. Oh, one, oh yeah, in the room, please.

When you've been applying for the license in the past, the events license, and music has gone on after 11,

so this is going to be completely different to that license, is that correct?

I believe has been in the past has been temporary event notices and they were totally different to what we're applying for now.

There is no required, no request for entertainment, regulated entertainment in this application.

And just for clarification, we as the licensing committee don't have anything to do with the temporary notice licenses, so that's not within our jurisdiction or our remit.

Okay, thank you. Mr Bishop?

Temporary notices are limited to, is it 15 now?

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, exactly and obviously those could involve regulated entertainment music live music recorded music

Dance whatever it may be

That's just so you know

But that's not us is it in terms of coming to what would happen is that?

They would they would make an application for a 10 which would be outside the hours you may or may not give today

and

that would then be considered by the environmental health team, NOISE, and the police.

They could, if they chose, raise an objection to that, which means that a temporary event

notice could come to you, the licensing subcommittee, for consideration about whether that event

can go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

And it's incredibly important that we all understand the remit of how the process and

the procedure of who gets to decide on things where and how things land in here.

And I think it also answers on page 72,

one of the objections was apply strict to scrutiny

to temporary event notices.

Obviously, we kind of have those things as they come down.

It's not something that off the back

we're responsible for as the licensing subcommittee.

So I just wanted that to be clear for people in the room.

Okay, are there any further clarifications on this?

Please don't feel if you have to be quiet.

If there are things that you want the applicant to clarify,

then there's no question asked too many times, if that makes sense.

Okay, nobody online, nobody in the room.

I now invite those making representations to address the subcommittee.

And you will have three minutes to speak, after which questions may be asked to you.

We're going to start in the room.

Mr. Flowers is going to kindly thank you.

when you're ready, you've got three minutes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

As I said, I've been a resident in Ormond Court for 56 years.

When this venue, which we're talking about,

was a coffee shop, and I must say

it's the most delightful looking premises to look across on,

I'm immediately across from, and I can see them from my windows.

I've often enjoyed a cup of tea, a cup of coffee with friends there.

I know the size of the area since I've been sitting inside.

Now, and I shouldn't have done this, I live alone, my son isn't anywhere near me, but

he was furious when he found out.

I couldn't imagine the dint and the noise that happened on the first occasion that this

happened with people there.

I went across the road, which I shouldn't have done.

I shouted, could I speak to a manageress?

I couldn't see anyone, forgive me, but this is the truth.

I think there were two people sitting. The rest was full of people standing up and down, jumping up and down.

And the bar is that way instead of that way, but it takes up half the area inside.

So, I cannot understand where you're going to get covers for people to sit at tables

and chairs and have a drink with it.

That I had no objection to because that's what I thought the application was for.

But this wasn't.

I did say down, trying to suggest because you couldn't hear, and I was told, go away,

go away, close your windows, and it was a heat wave.

And I was shooed out.

I'm very sorry to say that as I turned to go, a man that was rather jolly, shall we say, putting it politely, shouted,

Did you want to drink, love?

And I left. I walked along the road past the Arab Boy Pub that's been there for hundreds of years.

That's where local residents frequent very often and very regularly.

There were masses of people there, quiet, good as gold, enjoying a drink in the sunshine,

and I came home.

Allman Court residence, there's 127 flats there, and right at the very back of the building,

because of the shape of the building, the sound goes through the centre, over the top

of the reception area, and it echoes round the building, so they could hear all the noise

at the very back of the building, I unfortunately are at the front.

I know there's a difficult economical situation, but I cannot see that on a red route there's

never any passing trade there.

I've lived there for 56 years.

It's a red route.

You can't park your car anywhere.

These are people that are not local people.

They go to the pub if they want to drink, and they go to, forgive me, there's another

coffee shop just next door to where they were.

Three times the size was a big garden at the back.

So I don't wish anyone any harm.

But for the rest of my life there in Ormond Court, which has been my happy home all these

years, I'm here because at 87 I don't think I should put up with the din and the noise.

The second occasion when there were noises, people tried to close the door.

I could see them.

But you can hardly breathe at such a tiny place inside, so the door was completely being

pushed open, and I understand why.

So I have very strong objections to this.

From beautiful, delightful little coffee shop, I dread what's to come.

Thank you for listening to me.

I'm glad I pucked up the courage to come, because I think you should.

There are far too many changes and people are not giving their views one to one.

So I've said my piece, thank you for listening.

I don't wish you any harm with your business and I understand the economical difficulties,

but it's my home.

That's why I'm here.

Thank you for that representation, Ms. Ellen.

Thank you for, as you said, plucking up the courage.

Just know that this is an open, transparent process and we welcome all representations,

So thank you for being here.

The lady next to you.

Thank you.

I'm sort of on the same with Jill, that we live opposite.

We've been plagued by really loud music.

We dread the weekends.

We just don't know when we're going to hear noise.

We've tried to complain politely.

And we just dread noise, continual noise,

every weekend now.

and the thought of a license maybe not being used every weekend,

but it's like could potentially be 100 nights a year of disturbance,

potentially.

Not saying it will be, but it might be.

And the idea of that given what we've had already is just unthinkable.

And we don't live in a busy city center, like the gentleman said.

We live in a residential area.

If we lived in the city center, I'd expect this noise,

but we just shouldn't have to put up with it.

And the road makes no difference.

The traffic calms down.

It's purely music and noise from the venue.

And as I said, we want them to make money.

We don't wish them any harm.

But the noise is ruining living in our flat.

And again, thank you for listening.

Thank you for the representation.

I'm now going to go online.

And I will start with Mr. Conroy.

Thank you.

Hello, yes.

I'm a local resident and I go to the cafe every day, pretty much, apart from when I'm

on holiday.

I have never, ever seen or heard of any issues or problems with the cafe or the bar when

it got its license.

The only issues that have been raised have been very recent ones.

And a lot of the complaints have come from and been stirred up from the flat above the cafe.

I have been trying personally to have a meeting with the guys who live upstairs.

And each time I've approached them, they've refused to meet me or just had something better to do.

I think it is sad that residents

cannot just discuss things,

talk about things and make things

better for everybody.

I hope in the future people can have

conversations and talk to each other

rather than just writing things that

aren't accurate.

I would like, I hope

that the licence is granted

and I hope that

Mya has a successful business.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that representation.

I will now go to Mr. McNally.

Hi, yeah, I think most of my representation's

laid out in my written statement.

I just, excuse me, sorry.

I share with the view of the residents form of court

that if there is a license grounds

that it will be 100 or more,

it'll be more than 100 days a year

where we won't be able to sleep at a time we choose to sleep.

There's not much sound insulation between

the flat and the shop below and if there's noise late at night,

the voices are, you can hear everywhere people are saying.

And it's just impossible to sleep. Any amount of earplugs, even when the music's off.

I'm being kept up till 4am

from people inside the cafe. And I understand that's not what the license is being applied for.

But there are people in there and I have to go down to my pajamas at 4am.

I knocked on the door and couldn't even get it.

And no one let me in because they were having music on so loudly.

And yeah, so I just think this license will just increase the amount of nuisance in the local area.

Thank you for your representation.

I'll now go to Mr McMullen.

I'm one of the residents who lives above, who has been referred to lovingly in this

meeting.

Just referring to a lot about what the council for the committee has said, what the license

has said, you know, a lot of it's been said about it's an alcohol license, it's not an

entertainment license.

Yet almost every weekend there is loud music.

a weekend pass, there was a karaoke event where we recorded 110 decibels, which is the equivalent

of a car horn or a snowmobile. My laptop's in low charge, but don't worry if I drop out.

So there's that real difference between what's action.

If Mr. McMillan comes back, I'll just stop his time and he will give him the opportunity

to reply.

Oh, he's back.

He's back.

Oh, that was very quick.

Continue.

So, yeah, as I was saying, there's a real difference between what's been applied for

and what I think is actually going to happen.

We have, there is entertainment every night.

It's very loud.

It's 110 decibels, as I said.

The reason I ask for clarification in the bar

is because it's about double the length

of what currently is showing in the bar, in the floor plan,

which isn't really conducive to the idea

of non -vertical drinking.

It's much more towards the idea

of standing up, having a drink.

As my flatmate John has stated,

you know, it's the drinks are being served

all times at night.

We've been down at 2 a .m.

We've been shouted at.

We've been told that we should be enjoying ourselves

to have a drink.

I just think it's a bit insulting

that we're being told effectively

that because we moved in two months ago,

we don't have any right in what happens

and our local community.

This isn't a change that happened years ago

and now it's being reviewed.

It's happening now.

And we moved above this flat in the idea to cafe,

not a bar, not somewhere that's gonna be having drinks

to 130.

We have no trouble with traffic outside

because we knew where we're moving into.

We aren't stupid in that way.

So to me, there's a difference between

what's been applied for and what's going to happen.

There's very likely, it's unlikely that what has been

promised will go forward as there's been a huge amount of

discrepancies already in our written communications.

And this is a change to our community

that we have a right to speak to.

And my last point will also be about Ron Peterson

who lives in Faisant.

It was stated that there's been no complaints

until we moved in.

Michael Grenville, the last person who lived here complained.

from Peterson who lives beside has complained and people who also adjacent have complained so I

don't think it's just us. Thank you for your representation. Mr Prigmore.

Yes I have nothing really further to add it's the noise which is the thing it's the music it's so

destroying we just watching telly and all of a sudden you have to listen to their music at

whatever time they decide to put it on.

I don't know what the suggestion is, what the answer is,

but they don't, and I have asked in the past

and I got the answer, we have a license,

I want to make money.

And that's fine, we all want to make money,

but I need to sleep in order to be able to make money.

And it's quite soul destroying to have that.

But I don't think I've anything else to add.

It's the noise, it's the music, it's the constancy of it.

And I just feel it's going to increase in occasions

because they have been doing that in the past.

It's ever since these events started happening, it's just been getting worse and worse.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Prigamont.

Now, I've noted that two of the representations, Mr and Mrs Hogarth, have dropped off the call and they have been present.

So should they return?

I think it's only fair and right that they'd have an opportunity to give their contribution.

So I'm going to go to Mr Newby Walker and I'm going to hope that they're able to return

before we move on to the next item on the next part of the meeting rather than item

on the agenda. Over to you, Mr Newby Walker.

Thank you, Chair. I will try to keep this concise, but I might go over my three minute

allocation. There's quite a bit of history here for the noise team and obviously some

points raised by the applicants agent that I need to perhaps directly address.

So I mean, principally my representations based on that visit that was mentioned back in June,

where officers attended at one o 'clock in the morning and found a relatively small number of

people. I think it was about a dozen or half a dozen or so somewhere between those numbers.

But just the chatter and the level of conversation and the noise generated by that small number of

people was enough to prevent sleep in that property. You could hear every word. It was

quite intrusive and identified that the sound installation is really poor. And then, yes,

there has been a subsequent event that was on Friday and apologies for bringing that

late to the applicant notice. I was waiting to speak to the officer that attended this

morning before I confirmed what actions we would be taking. And I did speak to Mr. Dragovich

this morning to discuss and to make her aware obviously the officers had spoken to on the night

as well and then obviously I made that submission as quickly as I could no attention to to blindside

anyone on this but yes we do have evidence now because of that second visit the statue nuisance

is being called so that second visit was just past 10 o 'clock and the level of music was

significant throughout the occupants the residence flat this is Mr McNally that lives above

were technically

and the small numbers late at night

or even very busy numbers early in the evening

cause a level of nuisance.

Historically, I've been aware of this property

for quite some time.

I have dealt with previous complaints about this property.

This was back before the license was held

when it was a coffee shop.

We had allegations from the resident above

about the poor sound installation

and about how the operation of the business

was affecting them particularly very early in the morning when it was more of an impact to sleep.

We did investigate that as a team but we found that that complaint wasn't substantiated because

the timing was perhaps a little bit away from an hour when you live on sleep and the

the noise in the background at the time was quite high as well the traffic got very busy early on.

But it was enough for me to have an initial conversation with George Crick back then I think

that was back in 2020 or some time, maybe even further back than that. But it raised

the concern about the noise, the sound installation. But really at that point, we perhaps concluded

that the operation of a cafe during normal business hours during the daytime, the sound

installation was probably just about sufficient for that use. They've obviously applied for

a license and operated under a license under those timings that have been mentioned previously.

and it's true we didn't get a complaint about that and they have had temporary event notices

that have allowed operation to one o 'clock. Incidentally those temporary events never

requested regulated entertainment so music should have been offered at 11 o 'clock with those

but the alcohol to one o 'clock perhaps that's not what the residents have found but again we didn't

receive any complaints. Other than at the end of 24 we had an allegation of noise from the block

the court.

That resident didn't pursue a complaint with us.

We never got a chance to witness and to visit and to make any formal assessment.

But I did raise that concern with Mrs. Dragovich at the time because she made another temporary event notice.

And yes, I do oversee those and I would be objecting to future ones of those at the moment because of the abatement

that was just being served and what we've established.

established. But yes, the complaints came to us with this new application obviously

that's looking for later hours. And we have specifically established with Mr McNally that

there is a problem and a statutory nuisance being caused to them. And I don't think it's

unreasonable for them to complain. And I'm sure the last tenant perhaps would have complained

as well if he'd been minded to stay with the property. But that's a bit of hearsay. But

We believe that it'd be inappropriate to grant a license,

well, I believe anyway,

that to grant a license to operate beyond,

certainly beyond 11 o 'clock,

when we start talking about a late operation,

where there is a known problem with the sound installation

and where abatement notice has been served

because of the nuisance that's being caused,

potentially even in advance of that with the music.

So the music will need to be much more carefully controlled

and dare I say, not played at all.

The officers noting that what they witnessed on that night was not background incidental music. It was music played at a level above the conversation level of 20 plus 30 plus people in the premises at that time. So they will need to contain the music.

I welcome their condition if that's what they intend to do to have an acoustic consultant

that would be my recommendation here. They do need to have some formal understanding of what

the noise in the sound installation is in the property and some understanding of what level

of noise they want to create because if they've got a you know my conclusion is that this premise

is suitable for daytime cafe operation but if you move into a late night drinking late night

refreshment and music and stay up until every o 'clock, you are going to cause a

nuisance and that does need to be addressed and it needs to be addressed

with an understanding of what's needed if it's always until possible to retrofit

the level of sound insulation that would allow perhaps that sort of operation

until the early hours of the morning. I think yes the abatement notice is there

And yes, we would enforce that and that is separate legislation.

And it's obviously up to the committee to make a decision on this license.

But I would prefer to see this license restricted to 11 o 'clock

cease until those steps and those investigation into the sound installation

and mitigation action taken.

And then perhaps a variation in future when once it's been demonstrated that

the bill premises is suitable for and fit for purpose,

which I don't think it is at present.

Thank you, Mr. Newby -Vorker.

I'm just gonna come in there and just ask you to wrap up.

I would like to thank you for that representation.

It was very far.

As close as I could be, I'm sure.

No, no, it was very comprehensive

and I think it was important because it gave us

the background of how things were.

You had visited, we had the late submission

that we were unable to read,

so it was incredibly insightful.

So please thank you for the time

that you had contributed there.

Mr. Hogarth, you and your wife dropped off the call, but I had said we were waiting for you

because you've been incredibly instrumental to this procedure, so we were looking forward to having you back.

You both will have three minutes each, so just if you don't mind not speaking together,

well, I suppose you could speak together and have six minutes if you find that easier.

We speak as one.

Oh, that's wonderful. Well, then I will just set my timer for six minutes,

And then once she spots in or you butt out, however it goes,

you've got six minutes between the two of you.

Thank you for your representation.

Thank you.

And it's very nice of you to wait for us.

And I apologize for dropping out.

And I'm sorry if I'm running over old ground

that everybody's said already.

But so we would start off by saying that

it's not a terrible place.

It's a lovely cafe to go and have a cup of coffee

and a cake during the day.

and the staff have always been very nice at that point.

So it's not a terrible place.

However, later in the evening,

it becomes a licensed premises.

And now we already have the Arab boy

and we also have a next door,

a Italian restaurant, which is licensed.

And if this license is granted,

we then have three licensed premises

within 30 feet of each other,

which in our experience, I was a police officer for 30 years,

my wife is a current serving police officer,

three licensed premises within 30 feet of each other

is a license for antisocial behavior.

And that's generally what happens

when one licensed premises kicks out

and another licensed premises kicks out

and people come together.

And the gentleman who's representing Sweet Tooth Cafe

who suggested that people will wait inside for their taxis

and they'll be gone at one o 'clock,

has clearly not been to a pub for some years,

because what actually happens is everybody goes outside

and continues smoking and drinking

and talking to each other, making noise,

and fighting with each other.

And we don't want that on a residential street,

a 20 mile an hour residential street

where people live above,

and people live opposite three blocks of flat opposite,

culminating, I think, in the three blocks of flats

in about a thousand people,

some elderly, other people who work on shifts, and they don't want to have to listen to late

night noise and antisocial behavior and sirens where the police have to turn up.

And in my experience, three license premises is what you'll get if you have that.

I would also say that in answer to our learned friend who said that Mr. Sadiq Khan likes to

to reinvigorate town centers.

Yes, I'm all for that, but not residential areas,

which is what we are dealing with here.

We're not dealing with the town center.

And if this was on Pikely High Street,

I'd be happy as the next person to go and frequent it.

But this is a residential area with, as I say,

just the blocks and flats opposite

probably represent a thousand people.

And that's not counting the residents behind

or on the street.

So that would be a concern

because it's not actually a town center.

In reference to the amount of space outside,

25 people seated outside is untenable.

I think you might get, I've sat and had a coffee there.

They normally have eight seats and four tables,

and that's pretty cramped.

Our learned friend tells us that we can seat 25 people

out there and five smokers,

which will all be policed all at once

by the many staff that are going to be there.

Often what people tell you at a licensing meeting is what they hope you'll fall for,

so you give them the license and not the experience of the people who have to live through the subsequent license,

which is that 25 people will be standing up outside smoking, drinking late at night,

and keeping people awake in the opposite flats and the flats above.

So that is a clear problem.

I'm also interested in the 30 degrees that we have coming up this week, whether they

have music there, they put the soundproof curtain and shut the doors at 30 degrees,

somehow, I think that's also an empty promise that we're given so that you'll grant the

licence.

My other concern, and this is a real, even more of a concern, it's a health and safety

concern. The premises has a, as we're told, a three by four deck outside, which reduces the

pavement to three and a half feet. And what, in my experience from looking out over the premises is

as the drinkers spill out, the 25 who can't fit on the deck spill out onto the pavement,

it means that other people have to walk around them into the road. And I've seen a number of

incidents where people have walked into the road and cars have had to swerve out of the

way. Some of those being drinkers from the other licensed premises that we have here.

So a lot of what we're told is an aspiration by the premises to try to cajole you to give a

license when actually we know that the truth of the matter is an experience.

there'll be a large number of drinkers and smokers out till 2, 3 in the morning.

There'll be there'll be inebriated, there'll be mixing with people from

other licensed premises in a residential area which is going to cause

noise, antisocial behavior, police attendance and heaven knows and we know

that the police don't need to be coming to any more licensed premises to deal

with drunk people.

So with all of that in mind, I think

that the idea of us having three licensed premises within 30

feet of each other and within 30 feet of 1 ,000 people

in a residential area is a very, very bad idea.

And it should be turned down.

If I had realized they were even asking for a license up to 11,

I would have said that this was a bad idea because of all

of the reasons that I've already given you. The five smokers, these are arbitrary figures

that the gentleman there has just given to make you think everything's going to be okay.

I'm hoping that common sense will prevail and the licensing committee has seen and heard

enough licenses to know and understand when you're being fed red herrings to make you

decide that you'll give a license. It's not appropriate for the area, it's a residential

area, the pavement is too small, antisocial behaviour and noise will go up.

And the people I feel really sorry for are the people, the elderly people and the people

who live directly opposite.

Lack of sleep is a major consequence of mental health issues.

And just to say, I vehemently oppose.

So does my wife.

You spoke for the two of you.

So that's six minutes and I'm sure you've frozen there,

but you've got six minutes in.

So thank you for the representation

on behalf of your wife and yourself.

Are there any other questions of clarification,

subcommittee question?

Sorry, see.

Does the subcommittee have any questions

for those making representations?

So, my fellow councillors, if we have any for the people in the room, I think we could

ask those first and then we'll go to anybody online.

So, do we have any questions, councillors, for representations in the room of us?

Humphreys.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, and I'd just like to say thank you to everybody who's either online or here for

coming tonight to put your representations.

You'll appreciate it's a difficult balancing act for others of the committee to make a

decision because we hear one thing from one side and a different version from the applicant

inevitably.

So you'll appreciate we have to do a balancing act and please don't take offense if I challenge

anything you may or may not have said.

I don't mean it in that way.

But it's clear we've had, as I said, very different interpretations of what's going

on and from the representatives who are here in person, perhaps I could ask you, your experience

and your particularly unpleasant sounding experiences that you've had with this premises,

I'm assuming these are on these occasions when the tens have been issued and when there's

been a specific event noticed rather than regular day -to -day occurrences on the thing,

but could you just clarify one of you a little bit about how often this has happened?

Sorry. When it was a coffee shop, I loved it.

It's a delightful, lovely place to look at, but it's changed.

I thought perhaps it was a new owner because it was so very, very different

and the size of the bar inside tells me that it's not looking to just bring a bottle of wine or something to a table and have a meal.

There were masses of people all standing up and on both occasions singing and jumping up and down.

The minute you put music on and you have it for any length of time, alcohol steps in and the noise...

I'm just minded. Sorry. I don't like to interject but just was the size of the o2 arena not in your city

Thank you. Thank you

That's okay council humphries. Just be very specific with the clarification you're seeking from from

Representations in the room. Thank you their mom

Well, I probably made my first complaint well, I know it wasn't in May 2024 and

And since then, it's very, very, very regular weekends that I've been disturbed.

I can hear music.

Many I haven't complained, because I don't want to complain all the time.

But I now dread every weekend thinking there's going to be loud music.

Loud music is the main problem.

And I've noted them, the noise, and I haven't always gone to the council, but I don't

want to do that all the time.

I don't want to spend my life going to the council.

So I would say since May 2024, I've had regular, can't get to sleep, worry about getting to sleep, music played, loud noise.

That's as I see it. Thank you.

Councillor Davies.

Yes, thank you everyone for all of your contributions.

And I'd just like to ask a question about the sound -proofing.

So you've said that there'd be a soundproofing report.

But I'm not an expert in soundproofing, so

I don't know whether they would be able to come up with recommendations that would

sort the problem out for the residents upstairs.

But then also secondly, whatever they recommended,

If it would sort out the problem, is that going to be something that's feasible and

possible and financially affordable to put in?

Easy way to answer that, Councillor, thank you for the question.

We're in a situation now where there's a noise abatement notice to be issued, so Maya doesn't

have a choice.

Because under separate legislation, she has to adhere to this or she can't trade.

So, the Licensing Act, the premises license, will be a beneficiary of this because to remove

the noise abatement notice, which as I'm sure you know, if you ignore it in trade and it's

illegal and it's an offense, a criminal offense, it can be dragged through the courts.

She has to abide by that noise abatement notice.

So, the Licensing Act will be a benefit of that and these measures have to be put in

place.

And yes, to answer your earlier question, there are companies that come out and they

will advise what needs, what signed insulation is required, where it's required, the level

of what's required.

And then it's a case of, as I said with our, in my submissions, that would then be agreed

with Mr. Newby -Walker before any work was carried out.

So he would have the opportunity to say, yes, I agree, this will help.

And then the work is carried out, and then it's tested.

And it's not beyond the realms where testing is made, and it transpires a little bit more

might be required because they can still hear. So it's not let loose until

it's satisfactory being tested but in terms of getting it done the noise

abatement notice says it has to be done.

Councillor Davies any follow -up?

Yeah so my other question again is about noise and the front door is obviously going to be opening and closing for every new

Customer and everyone who wants to go outside and to smoke or you know and so on

So that's going to cause a bit for you know if some commotion sounds is going to leak out in that way

you know so that the

Provision of the sounds proof or you know sounds insulation curtain will do something there

But there will obviously be be gaps in it

So I don't know what?

What could be done there, I suppose, by Chris?

That again would be something that would be assessed by the noise impact assessment that would be carried out at the premises in terms of what noise escape.

Where is the noise escaping?

That's really what the assessment is doing.

And they're identifying the weak points in the building.

And if the front door is a weak point, then there would be suggestions on how that can be improved.

As you said, you're not an expert, neither am I.

I've just read a few of the reports that have been done for other clients.

So I got very kind of skeleton knowledge of it, but they do look at all areas of weakness

on the premises, in the framework of the premises, and look to address those issues.

Thank you, sir.

I'll come to Councillor Humphries and I'll come back to you, Councillor Davies.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

We've had allegations of apparently a lot of vertical drinking, which is the opposite

of what we're being told by the applicant. So perhaps somebody could address that and explain how

measures will be in place to prevent that happening when it's a regular part of the license

rather than for a 10 or something specifically. Yeah, Councillor, thank you. The permissions up to now have

been temporary events so they have been vastly different to what we're asking for going forward

as a long -term license. So the permissions for 10s did permit vertical drinking, it did permit people

to be stood up. But part of this application in conjunction with the licensing authority, the officers in the licensing team, it was agreed that everyone would be sat down.

And if you can't find a seat, basically the premises is full and you can't come in.

So everyone has to be sat down.

Nobody can go to the bar and order a drink, as you and I might do down the pub down the road.

It is a waiter -waitress service only.

So it's a vastly different license going forward that we're asking for tonight.

And what I'm hearing, and it was going to be my submission, my summing up anyway, what

I'm hearing, a lot of objections is about what has happened with the 10s.

This is not a continuation of the 10s.

It is vastly, vastly different.

Councillor Hunt, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to follow on from that.

And so we've heard about your offer to close the outside space after 11 p .m. and we understand

it is a small premises.

you've not got a vast amount of space either inside or outside.

So how will you accommodate those people that are sitting outside

when you say to them it's eleven o 'clock, they've got to come inside or leave?

How will that work in practice?

Well, on a practical level, and please, Maya, you can jump in

if I'm vastly wrong here, people would be given the

the pre -warning, if you like, round about quarter past ten, half past ten, this is

closing. So if you do want to continue, you might

want to consider coming inside now, because if you have, say, fifteen people

outside at 11 o 'clock and they all say we want to come in they can't because

there won't be room for them in the main so we're pre warning people in advance

look and to in experience a lot of people say no that's fine that's fine

mate I'm going home anyway I'll go at 11 that's fine thanks thanks a lot there

is only a small proportion of them will say I want to continue and then come

inside but they would only come inside if there's space but they'd be warned

early enough to to do something about it. Councillor Davies I saw that you may

have wanted a follow up if I went to Councillor Humphries.

Okay, I have a point of clarification.

And I think it was Miss Ellen, sorry,

if I've not, I'm getting,

no, she doesn't seem to turn her mic on, Mom.

I just wanted to refer to something that you had raised,

which was about the heat of the building.

And the reason this is, it's not a licensing issue,

but it is to do with the noise,

is how ventilated is the building

if windows and doors are going to be closed because I also, Mr. Hogarth again, I think

with an exclamation mark is noted, had raised that the weather conditions are going to be

quite sweltering. So is there adequate ventilation inside to ensure that people aren't fainting?

Obviously there's beverages there to keep them alive, but the door doesn't have to be

opened to allow the sound to leave because the weather is a big impact on my life.

why people would want fresh air and obviously the fresh air has an implication then on the

local area so I just wanted to understand the ventilation within the premises at the moment.

Thank you, Councillor. My just told me in my ear there's two

air conditioning cassettes inside the premises.

Thank you for clarification. Okay, I'm just going to turn online. Mr Hogarth,

Hold on one second, hold on.

So at this point the subcommittee doesn't have

any further questions for the representations.

For people that are wanting clarification at this point,

it's clarification from representations

not from the applicant.

So, yeah, one second, Mr. Flowers,

just to make sure I get this right,

because I have been known to make a mistake.

So we're just going to have Mr. Flower to verify what this section is.

Thank you.

Can I pause one more time please to be a signal?

Oh, just a signal.

Okay, I'm just going to confirm that we will be just pausing the meeting for a couple of minutes as a comfort break.

Okay.

I don't know if anybody's able to hear me, but Ron Peterson,

The neighbour is looking to join, just waiting in the lobby there.

Good afternoon, good evening everybody.

Thank you for the patience with the brief pause.

No, no apologies, you feeling okay to resume?

Thank you. Okay, we're going to let the person in the waiting room in, Mr. Flowers,

but just for clarity and transparency, they will not be permitted to contribute as we've now moved on from that part of the agenda.

However, as they have an interest in the herring, we're obviously allowing them to be here,

as if at the town hall they'd be allowed to sit in.

but for fairness they are not allowed to contribute because that part of the agenda has now passed.

Okay, thank you.

So we had just had before recap, Councillors asking for questions of clarification.

The next part of the agenda is that we ask the applicant, yeah, representations of whether the applicant has any questions.

My understanding is he doesn't.

If there are hands held at the moment,

this point of the procedure does not allow you

to ask any more questions.

However, we will be inviting each of you

to provide closing remarks.

So in your closing remarks,

you may wish to weave a question into a statement,

but you have had an opportunity earlier on

to have asked questions of the applicant

and this part of the procedure

does not permit us to go back.

So if you do have any questions, unfortunately, there's not an opportunity now because of how the procedures are that those will be answered

but you will have

The chance to put your final submission in is that clear to everybody online? You needn't do a thumbs up or a nod or yes

The mr. And mrs. Hogarth again. I can't see you. So

You're back. Okay, so wave so

We'll have you do closing statements at the appropriate time and as you both have two separate submissions

obviously you'll have double the time.

Okay, I will now invite each party to provide any closing remarks that they wish to submit.

This should be limited to a maximum of two minutes.

I will first invite those making representations,

followed by the applicant to address the licensing subcommittee.

So just as we've done it in order before, we're going to start in the room

and then we'll come to you online and I will call you by name online

and then you'll be invited to make your final submission.

I hope that's clear for everybody.

Thank you.

Mr. Flowers?

I think I've said all I wanted to say, and I thank you all very, very much for listening,

and I'm grateful for hearing all the other views.

Thank you.

Hello.

I just want to make sure my point has come across

at how miserable living in Ormond Court at the moment is

due to the stress of the noise, the thought of the noise.

And as long as I've got that point across,

that's what I've got to say.

Thank you.

So now moving online, I'll go to Mr. McNally.

Yeah, I think I've, as he said, everything I want to say,

I would just want to just reinforce the point

that I'm against granting and license to sell alcohol late at night. Thank you, Mr McNally.

Mr Mark Mullen. Yeah, so I've made my points. This has been an issue ongoing. It's been

when those TENs have been granted or in areas where they haven't been granted. If there's

been this many complaints now, think about later. How many complaints are they going

to be when there is no process to apply for a tea and there is no way for people to object

and it's something that they have as a right going forward. As many people have said, whenever

we first moved in, I love the cafe, I love being there, but it's felt now that with late

nights, with going open late, it just is a bit of a nightmare, especially on Friday and

Saturday nights when we know,

T and or not, we will be calling the sound team

because they always play music too loudly

because there's too much noise at the late hours of the night

I'm strongly against this application and my stress.

I hope that I will not go forward.

Thank you for your representation.

Mr. Conroy.

I'm for the application to be approved and for the license to go ahead.

I feel that the cafe brings people together.

It's great for the community and it's what people need, especially with the way the world

is at the moment.

The more people that come together and have a nice time, I feel that that's the best way

forwards but also I appreciate that creating a noise disturbance isn't

something that is pleasant for people which is why I know that my will

address the issues that have been raised thank you thank you for your

representation mr. Prigmore yes I strongly oppose it as as mr. Connor I

said it's we want to live together in a community but the and the actions of

Some people affect other people and I don't enforce my music on other people.

And therefore, I really don't appreciate having to listen to other people's music.

And I do strongly oppose. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Prigma. Mr. and Mrs. Hogarth, you have four minutes in total.

So please provide your representation. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks very much. I'd just like to say that Mr. Comroy says, you know, we want to bring people together.

I agree with you Mr. Conroy, we do want to bring people together, but as you can see

from this meeting we're pushing people apart because there's at least 20 people who are

saying that they oppose this and it's keeping them up at night and causing them to lose

sleep and therefore have various health and maybe mental health issues.

So we are not bringing people together.

I'd also say that the applicant's arguments are paper thin in terms of what they intend

to do with 25 people sitting outside, policing smokers, sound curtains over doors.

We all know that it won't really happen that way and we'll all be complaining every week.

And I would like to draw the council's attention to an excellent model of community at the

Jolly Gardeners, which is in Putney.

Now, as I'm aware, I don't know if it's their license or just because they like their community.

But I'm persuaded it's their license.

Their license says that after 10 o 'clock, their garden in a residential area like this one, everybody has to be in and all the doors have to be shut after 10 o 'clock.

to preserve the community aesthetic and keep the noise down.

And because of that, the community there is very happy and they frequent the area.

I feel that that wouldn't be the case here.

I feel that you're going to get complaint after complaint after complaint after complaint.

People going down with their cameras to film the 25 people standing up and the five smokers

throwing their butts and standing in the road and sending you stuff every week.

and we're going to get more and more sirens where the anti -social behaviour continues.

So we are vehemently against it for all of those reasons and we hope that common sense prevails and

the Licence Committee puts conditions similar to those of the jolly gardeners for the very least

because they have set precedent for punting. So thank you and sorry we kept dropping out.

Would you like to add anything?

So again I echo everything my husband has said. I strongly oppose this application

and from my experience as a police officer, I know all about licensing and the anti -social

behaviour that arrives out of it and I think having 21 years experience, I'm in a very

good position to put that forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your submission and also for rejoining, for you know, the perseverance

there and the technical issues that we discussed. Mr Newby -Walker, do you have anything further

to submit, sir?

Yeah, I just had that it's been suggested that all the issues have surrounded tens

and I think those have obviously been clearly occasions that have caused

disruption but I would be mind the committee that we lost visited on

Friday there was no tens. We visited at 10 .15, obvious vertical

drinking, people standing outside, all the tables were full outside I think and

again, the premises that are suggesting that that isn't going to happen and doesn't happen

and won't be happening. And I don't have any license at this point. I don't, I believe

alcohol was being consumed, but our officers didn't assess whether that was the case because

they believed it to be a licensed premises when they approached. So perhaps not truly

demonstrating their intent already and it's the opinion of the noise team

through our experience over many years and where we've dealt with in Stregovitch

prior to long before when that was just the cafe I've spoken to her since when

those tens were were happening as part of my looking at those so this is a

known issue and there's been issues that have been creeping up and creeping up

and this obviously exploded at this point I don't feel the property is fit

for purpose as a licensed premise,

and certainly not one that would operate beyond 11 o 'clock.

And that's the recommendation of the noise team,

at least until further mitigation can be applied

and that sound installation improved sufficiently

with our approval.

Yeah, that's my final comment.

Oh, sorry, just one more point.

Just sorry, closing the outside area at 11 o 'clock,

would be policy for outside areas to close at 10 .30

on a Sunday.

it's a minor point but they should be offering that condition in line with the

current policy. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Newby -Walker. I'd like to thank everybody

for the contributions online. We will now ask the applicant... Is it possible, I apologize...

Is that Mr. Peterson? No, no, unfortunately sir, the time where you could have contributed has passed now and for parity and fairness in terms of how we

procedurally run these meetings, you're unable to contribute, but we thank you for joining and welcome you to stay and observe the final parts.

Should you wish in the future, please just ensure that your hair

before the time passes. No, that's fine, but just for parity and fairness.

I had a work day, but yeah, no, I vehemently...

No, no, no, no, no, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, please.

Mic off please, that's incredibly rude. I'm just gonna say I actually found that incredibly disrespectful

that I asked you not to comment and you decided to speak over me.

We remained a quorum in this council, we run a tight ship and I don't expect to be disrespected in that manner.

You came to the meeting late, we allowed you to come and observe and you decided to speak over me when I gave you the gratuit...

Don't ever do that again please. Thank you.

I apologize.

Your apologies accepted and this behavior is noted.

So if you ever attempt to do such thing again, it will be noted.

Thank you.

At this point, I'd like to welcome the applicant to have his final contributions.

You will have a maximum of 16 minutes.

I'm sure you won't use them all, but that is the time that's been allotted to you.

Please, sir, would you like to start your final submission?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Starting just with a point, really, I find it somewhat insulting and shameful that it's

been suggested that I'm here to mislead the Committee.

I'll just make one point on that.

I wouldn't be in business for 24 years and be a successful licensed consultant if I spent

my time going around the country misleading or attempting to mislead licensing committees.

So I find the comments from the ex -policeman somewhat disturbing.

Moving on, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of the complaints we've had or representations

we've had revolve around activities that took place during temporary event notices.

And I think it's quite clear that we are not applying for a continuation of what's been

going on in the past.

Going forward, you have the application set out in front of you and it clearly states

how the applicant will operate the premises.

Everyone sat down, waiter service only, and there are a number of conditions that

must be adhered to. A lot of people are worried about the music noise. I think

somebody actually said it's specifically the music that is the problem. Well you've

also heard that courtesy of the Environmental Health Officer there is a

noise abatement notice being served on the premises. Now regardless whether you

think the applicant will adhere to it or not, she doesn't have a choice because

she could end up in court with up to a £20 ,000 fine if she doesn't.

So you can be satisfied with that, that what we say in here will actually take place.

You're told that what is applied for and what will happen will be different.

Well, that's not true either.

As you know, there are many conditions attached to a licence.

And if any one of those conditions are breached, there are serious implications.

It could trigger a review of the premises license where Maya would be back before you

again to try and save her business, save her license, and you would have the power to revoke

the license.

In serious cases, she could end up going through the courts, and I think we all know the ultimate

penalty for breach of a condition of a license is six months in prison and or an unlimited

fine.

So to say, oh, they'll just do what they want is very amateurish indeed.

To tell us that three premises within 30 feet will be a problem,

well the Metropolitan Police didn't think so.

They would have been here objecting if they felt there was any risk whatsoever.

We're also being told many times there are a thousand people,

residents in the area, that may even be a thousand people living in the flats opposite,

or there's a thousand people in the area.

And we've had 20 objections.

That tells me 980 people are in support of this application because they didn't object.

Let's get it into context.

They didn't support, but they didn't object, and they all had the opportunity to object

like the 20 people did, but they chose not to.

It either wasn't important enough for them to sit down and type a letter or whatever

it took.

And can we just clarify for the benefit of one of the objectors that the number 25 has

disappeared some hour and a half ago and the maximum people that we would per chance entertain

outside would be 20, more likely to be 15.

We had 25, 25, 25, an awful lot.

It doesn't exist.

Chair, that is my conclusions.

Hopefully I've just tidied up a lot of things that I've jotted down as people have made

their representations to make it quite clear what the applicant is asking for.

I would ask that you consider this application on the merits and you grant as applied for.

I thank you very much for your time this evening. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions this evening, both online and in the room.

We take it very seriously that people come and raise objections and hold us to account

and also have the opportunity to participate in this democratic process.

This now, after this submission by the applicant, has now concluded this part of the meeting.

The decision, reasons and any legal guidance given during the subcommittee's discussion that has informed their decision will be confirmed in writing,

together with information about any rights of appeal within five working days.

Members of the licensing subcommittee, the Democratic Services Officer and legal officers will now join.

We will be staying here as you lovely people make your way home or, you know, turn your laptops off and charge them

and have a nice evening.

We will have a separate confidential meeting in this room to make the decision.

I'd really like to reiterate my thank yous to everybody online. It's been,

I dare say, it is a pleasure to serve the borough of Wandsworth. So thank you for taking the time to contribute.

I appreciate it's been a very long meeting,

but this is the business of the day and it takes as long as it takes for us to hear from every one of you.

So please go off, have a really pleasant evening, and you'll soon hear, I suppose, whether

we grant the license or not, because I've outlined how that will be communicated.

Thank you.

Mr Flowers will now terminate the live stream, so.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Licensing Committee - Tuesday 8 July 2025, 6:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Licensing CommitteeTuesday, 8th July 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 8th July 2025 at 6:30pm