L

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE

Tuesday 22 September 2015 at 7.00 pm

MINUTES PRESENT: Councillor Linda Bray, Councillor Amélie Treppass and Councillor

Paul McGlone

APOLOGIES:

ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Martin Tiedemann

Action required by

1 ELECTION OF CHAIR

MOVED by Councillor Linda Bray, SECONDED by Councillor Amelie Treppass and RESOLVED: That Councillor Paul McGlone be elected as Chair of the meeting.

2 DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

None were declared.

3 MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 25 August 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record of the proceedings subject to one change detailed below. Condition 3 of the additional conditions on page 4 of the minutes would be amended to read: “Ales, lager and cider shall not be supplied in bottles of 2 litres and above in capacity”.

4 LICENSING APPLICATIONS FOR THE GRANT / REVIEW OF A PREMISES LICENCE

4a UK FOOD AND WINE LIMITED, 262 BRIXTON HILL, LONDON, SW2 1HP (BRIXTON HILL)

Presentation by the Licensing Officer The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for the review of a premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 6.2 on page 38 of the agenda papers. The Licensing Officer confirmed:

The premises licence holder was Mr Nadeem.

A copy of the application could be found on page 39 of the

agenda papers.

A review of the premises licence had been requested by

Lambeth Trading Standards Officer, Mr Bernard Conmy,

on the licensing objectives of the prevention of Crime and

Disorder , Public Safety and the prevention of public

nuisance.

The application was supported by the Police, Licensing

team and a Ward Councillor.

Pictures supporting the review application could be found

on page 51 of the agenda papers.

If the Sub-Committee was not minded to revoke the licence,

then suggested additional conditions have been submitted

by the licensing manager and could be found on page 62

of the agenda papers.

Emails of support for the shop from local residents and the

licensee’s agent can be found from page 65 of the report.

The premises had held a premises licence from July

2005.When the licence was awarded the premises had

nominated a DPS , however, this person had ceased to

perform these functions at the premises in the last five

years (understood to be from 2009).

A copy of the premises licence could be found on page 71

of the agenda papers.

Presentation by the applicant

Mr Bernard Conmy, Trading Standards Officer informed the Sub-Committee that:

The premises is located in a mixed residential and

commercial area.

Page 51 of the agenda papers displayed the William Hill

sign located along a series of shops and was a well-

recognised betting shop in the area.

He had established that there was a group of male

individuals who loitered in the vicinity of the premises and

next to the betting shop and drank alcohol outside regularly.

The betting shop is understood to be well run and drinking

was not allowed inside.

The groups of individuals congregating at the front of the

premises comprised generally the same people.

It was understood that the group brought alcohol from the

premises and loitered in front of the neighbouring property

which was an unattended premises.

The group in question smoked cannabis, drank alcohol and

had verbal altercations with passers by.

The individuals often made offensive comments towards

female passers by who had reported various forms of

sexual harassment.

The Police have tried to investigate and work with the

group. However, they often behaved well when Police were

present.

He had visited the premises in April 2013 and found open

bottles of alcohol and the premises appeared to be being

used as if it were a bar with an on licence.

This behaviour contradicted the terms of the premises

licence which did not permit the consumption of Alcohol on

the premises. If people observed others drinking inside the

premises, that would influence others to enter the premises

and drink alcohol.

Thirty-one bottles of illicit spirits had been found at the

premises. These were UK duty not paid or duty diverted

items. Eight bottles of alcohol found were determined to be

counterfeit products.

If counterfeit products for consumption were ever sold, then

the content of the product could never be known,

particularly to the consumer.

The Portman Group has advised against stocking 500ml

containers of super strength alcohol partly because it

promoted excessive drinking.

Open bottles of spirits and plastic cups had been found on

the premises. This was a breach of the alcohol licence.

Mr Aslam had been named DPS but was not contactable.

The premises licence holder had reported that he had

made a mistake and brought spirits from a “white van man”

and recognised there was a problem with the group that

loitered outside the premises.

The DPS had left the premises five years ago and

subsequently the premises had been selling alcohol illegally

for the last five years as there was a condition to sell

alcohol only when there was a DPS present at the

premises. The premises licence holder should be aware of

this due to his status as premises licence holder.

This was a difficult case as there were two licenced

premises in the vicinity where the group would loiter.

The other licenced premises (a betting shop) was

understood to be well run.

There was a problem with street drinkers in the area.

Smuggled alcohol and duty not paid items were offences

serious enough for the Sub-Committee to seriously

consider a revocation of the licence, even on the first

occasion.

If the Sub-Committee was minded to place additional

conditions on the licence then they were recommended to

add that no miniature spirits were to be sold and to restrict

the sale of cider in bottles of 1.5 litres and above in

capacity”. .

In response to questions from Members, Mr Conmy informed the Sub-Committee that:

In 2008 the premises had failed a test purchase exercise

and alcohol had been sold to an underage test purchaser.,

In April 2010 the premises had sold counterfeit alcohol and

in February 2012 there had been an illegal sale of

tobacco.. Although the council operated a three strikes

policy this was often difficult to apply because other factors

had to be considered, such as the period of time over

which these incidents took place and whether there had

been changes in management in the meantime. A three

strikes policy would usually be applied to incidents

occurring over a period of two years.

One of the incidents involved tobacco and was therefore i

not directly a Licensing Act 2003 issue. Trading Standards

may have contacted the premises in 2008 by telephone.

When he had spoken to the premises licence holder, Mr

Nadeem finally admitted that a DPS had not been present

at the premises for several years.

With regard to paragraph five of page 47 of the agenda

papers, it was not known who the caution had been issued

to, however, a caution had been issued.

Trading Standards carried out test purchases on a number

of premises across the borough. Letters were sent to all

premises that passed the test. The premises success in

passing previous test purchases was noted however this

issue was not being used as a basis for this review.

Police had examined the group that loitered outside and

had reported that the group was problematic and difficult.

When uniformed Police would be present in the area, the

group would be well behaved but when the Police were not

present, their behaviour would change.

The premises licence holder appreciated that there was a

problem with the group outside but was not overly

concerned with the issue.

For most types of retail alcohol such as lager -the usual

limit for alcohol by volume (ABV) was 6%. Fosters had a

level of 4% abv and Carlsberg Special Brew had a level of

9% abv.

The preferred limit would be 6% abv for these premises.

The premises licence holder could have taken various

steps to rectify various aspects of his situation such as

replace the DPS but had not done so.

The premises licence holder has recently applied to be the

DPS but only when he was about to appear before the Sub-

Committee.

Presentation by the interested parties PC Hannah Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

She had read the application for the review and agreed with

Mr Conmy’s submission.

Mr Conmy had outlined illegal offences committed such as

illegal alcohol being displayed for consumption at the

premises and that the premises had operated for five years

without a DPS.

The premises licence holder was aware of what practices

should be occurring at the premises.

The premises licence holder was the individual who would

be prosecuted for selling alcohol to underage individuals.

It was illegal to sell alcohol to children.

Passing a test purchase exercise simply indicated that the

business was being run legally and the premises did not

have to be commended for this. Although it was

acknowledged that some test purchases had been passed,

the premises staff had committed an offence by having

failed one test purchase.

The premises licence holder had since been operating

within legal parameters. However, this should have been

done previously.

The premises had always been observed to be open.

She had spoken to PC Burton who had reported that there

were problems with anti-social behaviour in the area.

She had spoken to the staff at the William Hill betting shop.

Some stringent enquires had been made with regard to the

premises and they were considered to be the best run

bookmakers in the borough.

The anti-social problems in the area were linked to the

premises.

In response to questions from Members, PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

The premises were open twenty-four hours and did not

close. She had never observed the premises being closed.

However, licensable activity did not take place during a

twenty-four hour period.

Mr Conmy had informed that consumption of alcohol at the

premises was taking place.

She had spoken to a dedicated ward Officer and one of the

problems in the area was anti-social behaviour. He had

also stated that he knew people who brought alcohol from

the premises and were causing anti-social behaviour. They

were well behaved when an officer was present in the area

in uniform but caused issues when an officer would be

present in plain clothes.

If there was no alcohol being sold at the premises, then the

group would not be present in the area.

There were also sex workers in the area but had no

involvement with regard to the premises. Some of them

were understood to have alcohol issues.

The individuals from the group had not been seen

purchasing alcohol from the premises itself.

There was an open conversation between residents, Police,

businesses, and the safer neighbourhood panel regarding

issues of anti-social behaviour in the area.

A number of incidences regarding anti-social behaviour was

not being formally documented.

In relation to the sexual harassment of women in the area,

she had not witnessed it herself. It was often this kind of

anti-social behaviour often went unreported.

It had been suggested that this was a prominent issue.

Robert Gardner, Licensing Manger, informed the Sub-Committee that:

A principal concern was that Licensing had not been not

notified for five years that there was no DPS present at the

premises.

Due to efforts made by Trading Standards, the Licensing

team had become aware that no DPS had been present at

the premises for the last five years.

At no point during the last five years were the Licensing

team aware that the premises had been operating without a

DPS.

He would support a revocation and the evidence that had

been put forward with regard to a number of illegal

practices and duty diverted stock. He proposed an

additional condition that no beer, lager or cider with an ABV

of 5.5% or above may be sold or supplied in a single bottle

or container with a capacity greater than 750ml.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Gardner informed the Sub-Committee that:

He had not had any direct dialogue with the premises about

the suggested conditions.

Councillor Tiedemann informed the Sub-Committee that:

There were serious issues of anti-social behaviour in the

area.

In September 2013, he had raised issues with Mr Conmy

and had also raised the issue that the premises voluntary

code of conduct had been breached.

Parts of the licence had been underlined with marker pen

for emphases on particularly important parts. However,

these had not been followed.

There were issues of sexual harassment in the area. The

business had a level of responsibility with regard to this

issue.

There had been emails sent from 2009 to a previous

Councillor from residents complaining about the issue of

sexual harassment.

In a meeting held recently, every woman in the room had

reported that they had experienced some form of sexual

comment or harassment. These were serious issues. Some

residents had queried to what extent the business was

responsible.

He had observed stacks of empty plastic cups at the

premises and individual drinking near the premises.

He had also seen bottle openers at the premises.

He had seen people drinking wine in the vicinity of the

premises.

Whilst further conditions were welcome, it was felt that the

licence should be revoked.

In response to questions from Members, Councillor Tiedemann informed the Sub-Committee that:

People had suffered from sexual harassment including

people who lived on the flats above the shops.

On one occasion, the harassment involved touching and

regular and routine verbal comments.

There had been one woman who continuously crossed the

road when she was in the area and had moved home since.

Complaints about the premises had come from residents

from his ward. They had raised it with him and at the

meeting every single woman had reported the anti-social

behaviour. He had spoken to all twenty-five people present.

He had not observed or heard sexist or harassing

comments. He had seen groups outside drinking but had

not witnessed any sexual harassment.

The plastic cups and bottle openers indicated that the

drinking in question was emanating from the premises.

The premises licence holder, Mr Nadeem and his representative, Ms Sylvester informed the Sub-Committee that:

The premises licence holder has had a premises licence

since it 2002 / 2003 and was running the premises previous

to the Licensing Act 2003.

After the Licensing Act 2003 had passed, the premises

licence holder obtained his licence as normal but had not

attended the training courses and was unaware of his

responsibilities as a premises licence holder.

The premises licence holder had been unaware that when

the previous DPS had left, the name of the DPS had to be

transferred into another staff member’s name.

When the premises licence holder had informed Trading

Standards that the DPS had left five years ago, he had

been unaware with regard to the standard requirements of

the Licensing Act 2003.

As soon as the premises licence holder had been made

aware of the need to have a DPS, he made the required

change and the premises licence holder had become the

DPS.

The premises closed every day no later than 23:00.

The premises licence holder had been running the

premises since 2003.

With regard to the illegal sale of alcohol in 2008, this had

been done by Mr Javaid and he had been dismissed seven

years ago and had not returned to the premises since.

With regard to the incident in 2010, the illicit alcohol had

been brought by a customer who wanted to exchange

bottles and premises staff were unaware that the products

were counterfeit. The premises licence holder realised that

this was inappropriate practice and no longer traded in this

manner.

The illegal sale of tobacco was a mistake.

There was no condition that a refusals register needed to

be used but this has since been brought into practice.

A tobacco notice for selling only to 18 year olds and over

has been put on display.

An inspection in April 2013 indicated no concerns regarding

any of the alcohol stock.

High strength alcohol and ciders had been on sale but the

premises licence holder was in his right to do so as there

was no condition on his premises licence precluding this.

The alcohol found at the premises in open vessels

belonged to friends of the licence holder. This was not to be

consumed whilst the premises was open but after it was

closed. None of the vessels had been sold but had been

given to friends of the premises licence holder.

The premises licence holder had passed test purchases on

three occasions including not selling to a child under the

age of 18.

The premises licence holder has admitted on one occasion

that had brought alcohol from a white van man who had

showed him duty paid stickers. The premises licence holder

thought these were genuine but would not trade in this

manner again.

A list of people authorised to sell alcohol had been created.

Quizzes had been prepared to be given to staff as refresher

training so they were aware of their responsibilities and

remembered them.

The premises licence holder had trained his staff on how to

use a refusal book.

All tobacco products had been re-positioned and would not

be sold to children.

When the new licence would be issued, it would be shown

to officers whenever necessary.

The premises licence holder had telephoned the police and

had told the group outside the premises to leave but they

would become aggressive.

The premises licence holder has put signs outside

informing that no loitering was allowed. He has also had his

staff do their best to get rid of them.

The premises licence holder has tried to work with Trading

Standards and would stop selling single cans over 7% in

abv once the current stock has sold out.

A number of specialist drinks over 6.5 % abv were sold at

the premises and the business did not want to lose regular

customers who were not street drinkers.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Nadeem and Ms Sylvester informed the Sub-Committee that:

The premises licence holder had not known he had to

change the allocated DPS after the previous DPS had left.

The premises licence holder has had recent training in the

Licensing Act 2003. He also had a booklet to which he

could refer.

The premises licence holder had made arrangements for

CCTV installation into the premises and would put this into

effect.

The premises licence holder has trained staff on how to

meet various conditions on the licence and would deliver

training approximately every four weeks.

The premises licence holder kept a written record of all staff

members who made sales of alcohol.

The premises licence holder has started to maintain a

refusals register. A number of customers would buy drinks

containing over 5.5% abv who were not street drinkers.

The premises licence holder has requested for the group

who loitered outside the premises to move away but neither

he nor the Police have been able to get the group to move

and stay away from the premises. The premises licence

holder has made every effort with regard to this.

The premises licence holder had advised that he would not

invite or allow friends or family to drink on premises.

It was difficult not to sell single cans of alcohol for very

small premises and therefore the premises licence holder

would be reluctant to stop selling single cans of alcohol.

The premises licence holder would not purchase any

alcohol from unauthorised outlets.

The premises licence holder had never opened bottles for

the group that loitered outside the premises.

When the Licensing Act 2003 came into effect, the

premises licence holder was unaware of his legal duties in

relation to the act as he had held a premises licence prior to

2003.

At this point in the proceedings, the Licensing Officer informed the meeting that after the Licensing Act 2003 came into effect, any already existing premises licence holders did not have to undergo the now required training courses for premises licence holders. In response to questions from Members, Mr Nadeem and Ms Sylvester informed the Sub-Committee that:

Plastic cups were no longer sold at the premises.

The alcohol that was above 5.5% abv was Heineken.

Some of the alcohol brought in from Poland was close to

6.5% abv.

Overly strong alcohol of a very high abv rate would not be

sold in single cans. However, slightly lower strength beers

would be sold.

The premises has stopped selling any alcoholic drinks

above 7% abv.

There was another premises connected to the business.

This was located next door but staff members had not and

were not selling drugs there.

The premises licence holder promised he would hold his

licence with a high level of responsibility.

Premises staff had told the group outside to move away

from the premise. Sometimes they would move,

sometimes they did not move and other times they would

argue. Premises staff had argued with the group before and

they had been reported to the Police by premises staff.

On Sundays the premises would close at 22:30 and was

never open past 23:00. There was another premises which

would remain open which was located on number 292 (the

number of Mr Nadeem’s premises was 262).

The premises was not open twenty-four hours.

The local ward Police Officer had visited the area, however

had not spoken to premises staff.

The plastic cups could not be brought from his premises as

they did not sell them anymore. There was a Sainsbury’s

close by and other shops were available in the area.

The premises licence holder was aware that smoking inside

the premises was against the law.

PC Eldridge was recalled to address matters arising. In response to questions from Members, PC Eldridge informed the Sub-Committee that:

Whenever she had gone past the premises she had not

taken a specific note of what time it was.

She had only ever observed the premises as being open.

She also had to visit other premises which had more

significant issues.

The premises licence holder after apparently having called

the Police regarding the group outside did not leave his

name as he did not wish for the Police to associate him with

the group or the business. However, it then makes the call

difficult to trace for caller verification.

The group that loitered outside the premises appeared to

be volatile and appeared to be intoxicated, rude, obnoxious

and sexist. This was understood to be a common

occurrence.

The William Hill premises was not known to sell plastic

cups.

The Licensing Manager, Mr Gardner was recalled to address matters arising. In response to questions from Members, Mr Gardner informed the Sub-Committee that:

The conditions with regard to the abv rate were becoming

more common. It was a way of controlling excessive

intoxication.

Selling alcoholic drinks in packets of four could act as a

significant deterrent for street drinkers.

5.5% was seen as the ‘tipping point’ for abv. A higher

percentage could lead to problems of anti -social behaviour.

However, this would always be considered on a case by

case basis and was not a standard uniform approach.

Preventing the sale of single cans and promoting low

strength alcohol sent a message in respect to responsible

drinking.

In relation to additional conditions, he would agree with Mr

Conmy’s additional suggested conditions that no bottles of

cider be sold in excess of 1.5 litres.

Miniature bottles of spirits should also be restricted.

The premises licence holder and his representative was recalled to address matters arising. In response to questions from Members, Mr Nadeem and Ms Sylvester informed the Sub-Committee that:

The premises licence holder would need guidance on how

to join the BCRP.

Adjournment and Decision At 9:26pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from Mr Conmy, PC Eldridge, Mr Gardner, Councillor Tiedemann, Ms Sylvester and Mr Nadeem. Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the review application and to impose additional conditions on the premises licence. RESOLVED: To grant the review application and impose the following conditions: Conditions proposed by the Licensing team 1. Digital CCTV and appropriate recording equipment to be installed in accordance with Home Office Guidelines relating to UK Police Requirements for Digital CCTV System, operated and maintained throughout the premises internally and externally to cover all public areas, including the entrance to the premises and shall as a minimum cover the counter, the entrances/exits. The system shall be on and recording at all times the premises licence is in operation. 2. The CCTV cameras and recording equipment must be of sufficient quality to work in all lighting levels inside the premises at all times.

3. A CCTV system covering areas inside and outside of the premises should be operating and maintained according to police recommendations with properly maintained log arrangements and recording/tapes to be kept for a minimum of 30 days. 4. Subject to Data Protection guidance and legislation, the management of the premises will ensure that key staff are fully trained in the operation of the CCTV, and will be able to download selected footage onto a disk for the police without difficulty or delay and without charge to Lambeth Police. 5. Any breakdown or system failure will be notified to the police immediately & remedied as soon as practicable. 6. The premises shall join and actively link with the Business Crime Reduction Partnership (BCRP), its linked radio scheme and the intranet site or similar scheme. 7. All persons or staff members engaged, or to be engaged, in selling alcohol on the premises shall receive full training pertinent to the Licensing Act, specifically in regard to age-restricted sales, and the refusal of sales to persons believed to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Induction training must be completed and refresher training given thereafter at intervals of no more than twelve (12) weeks. All restricted sales training undertaken by staff members shall be fully documented and signed by the employee and Page 62 the DPS. All training records shall be made immediately available upon request to the Local Authority Licensing Officers and Lambeth Police Licensing Officers. All records are to be maintained for 12 months. Staff to be trained to be aware of proxy sales where an adult will buy alcohol for a child. 8. A written record of those authorised to make sales of alcohol shall be kept at all times. This shall be endorsed by the DPS with the date such authorisation commences. This shall be made available immediately upon request to the Local Authority Licensing Officers and Lambeth Police Licensing Officers. 9. The Licensee shall maintain a Refusals register and record any instances of refused service because of age/no ID, or drunkenness, to be produced on request. All documentation must be kept for a minimum of 12 Months. 10. No beer, lager or cider with an ABV of 5.5% or above may be sold or supplied in a single bottle or container with a capacity greater than 750ml 11. The premises licence holder shall keep all invoices/receipts relating to alcohol stored on the premises for a period of 12 months so that they can be cross-referenced with stock on the premises during unannounced inspections by police officers and officers from Lambeth Council and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Receipts shall include the following details: a) The seller’s name and address b) Seller’s company details, if applicable c) Sellers VAT details, if applicable

12. There shall be no paraphernalia or similar items associated with the labelling or re-labelling of alcohol or other goods kept on or in any part of the premises building (including store/stockrooms, offices, associated dwellings etc.) 13. Patrons shall be requested not to congregate outside the premises or on the pavement. Notices to this effect must be prominently displayed at the entrances of the premises. 14. No alcohol should be consumed inside or outside the premises either during trading hours or out of hours. 15. No single cans or bottles of beer or cider or spirit mixtures shall be sold at the premises (only multipacks of 4 or above should be sold at the premises). 16. The premises licence holder shall not purchase any alcohol from itinerant sellers. 17. The premises will adopt and operate an age verification policy set at a minimum of 25 years, whereby any person attempting to buy alcohol who appears to be under 25 will be asked for photographic ID to prove their age. The only form of ID that will be accepted are passports, driving licences with a photograph or Citizen card or validated proof of age cards bearing the “PASS” mark hologram. The list of approved ID may be amended or revised subject to prior written agreement with Lambeth Police. 18. Signage advertising the "challenge 25" policy will be displayed in prominent locations in the premises and shall include the point of sale and the area where alcohol is displayed , as a minimum. Further additional conditions 1. There would be no sale or supply of miniature alcoholic drinks

of the amount of 50 millilitres or less at any time.

2. There would be no sale or supply of bottles of cider exceeding 1.5 litres.

Announcement of Decision Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the application and impose the additional conditions set out above. Members were satisfied that the imposition of these additional conditions fully addressed the issues arising from this review and were appropriate and proportionate.

4b ASHOK SUPERMARKET, 28 BRIXTON STATION ROAD, LONDON, SW9 8PD (COLDHARBOUR)

On opening the meeting, the Chair invited the Designated Premises Supervisor to address the meeting, as it had been brought to his attention by licensing that he had requested an

adjournment. The designated premises supervisor informed the Sub-Committee that:

He and his family had suffered a bereavement and

therefore his father, the Licensee, was unable to attend.

His solicitor had suffered a viral infection and subsequently

was unable to attend.

The Chair then sought the view of the applicant who indicated no objection to an adjournment. The Licensing Officer then confirmed that the application could be heard at a later date potentially in November 2015. The Legal Officer advised the meeting that should another request for an adjournment be made by the premises licence holder at that future meeting, then it was possible that the Sub-Committee could consider the application in the absence of the premises licence holder. Announcement of Decision Following legal advice on the options open to them, the Sub-Committee decided that it was in the public interest to adjourn consideration of the application. The Chair requested that the Designated Premises Supervisor instruct the Solicitor representing him in these proceedings to write to the Licensing Authority confirming what he had told the Sub-Committee so as to secure the adjournment.

RESOLVED: To adjourn the application.

5 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION TO A TEMPORARY EVENT NOTICE

5a SOUTH POLE SALOON, ROOF CAR PARK ABOVE 20-24 POPES ROAD, BRIXTON, SW9 8JH (COLDHARBOUR WARD)

The item was withdrawn as the objector had withdrawn their representation.

6 VEGBAR, 45 TULSE HILL, LONDON, SW2 2TJ

Presentation by the licensing officer The Sub-Committee was informed that a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) had been given and the Sub-Committee was being asked to consider objections received by the Council’s Environmental Health (Noise) Service team. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 7, 9 and 15 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 5, 6, 8 and 14 and Appendices 6, 7 and 9 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were

set out in paragraph 6.2 on page 9 of the additional agenda papers. The Licensing Officer confirmed:

The notice requested the sale of regulated entertainment,

sale of alcohol and late night refreshment.

The application was for the use of the premises from 21:00

on 26 September 2015 to 03:00 on 27 September 2015.

The event was being held to celebrate a private birthday

party.

A representation had been received from the Noise team

on 17 September 2015.

The premises already benefited from an existing premises

licence for live music, recorded music, late night

refreshment and the supply of alcohol.

A copy of the notice can be found on pages 11-18 of the

additional agenda papers

The representation by the Noise team could be found on

pages 19 -20 of the additional agenda papers.

This was the fifth Temporary Event Notice the premises

had given this year.

Presentation by the Responsible Authority Mr Calvin McLean from the Noise team informed the Sub-Committee that:

The Noise team objected to the application on the basis of

public nuisance.

He would like the Sub-Committee to issue a counter notice

to the notice from the applicant.

On 2 February 2015, a noise abatement order had been

served onthe owners to prevent noise nuisance from the

premises after complaints had been received. This was

done on the likelihood that statutory nuisance could occur

after a visit had been made to the premises on January

2015.

On 25 July 2015, officers had attended the premises and

observed two separate statutory nuisance offences across

two different premises. The first of these offences the DPS

and the premises licence holder had been on site and were

generally uncooperative. On the second occasion, Officers

attended the premises at 03:44 and found that a statutory

nuisance offence had occurred.

The applicant may inform that the premises previously

known as Brazas or Club 43 and the Vegbar were two

different premises. However, on 25 July Mr Beer was

present when Officers attended the premises, therefore a

connection between the two premises could be

substantiated. Officers reported that they had asked Mr

Beer to turn the music down but he refused to do so.

There had been a hearing on 18 September at Camberwell

Green Magistrates Court in respect to the abovementioned

breaches of the abatement notice. That hearing had been

adjourned for the premises licence holder to seek legal

advice.

The event on 25 July had been unlicensed and this was an

offence in itself. Mr Beer had informed that this was due to

him having made a mistake on his application and had

written ‘25 August 2015’ instead of ‘25 July 2015’. However,

it was still the premises licence holder’s responsibility to

ensure that unlicensed activities did not occur.

Mr Beer would like to use a DJ at the proposed event.

However, this was not appropriate particularly for an event

scheduled to end at 03:00 due to building regulations.

In response to questions from Members, Mr McLean informed the Sub-Committee that:

Two Officers met the premises licence holder when they

visited him and he had behaved in a difficult manner to

Officers.

The Vegbar and Club 43/ Brazas operation were directly

linked and were not dissimilar in nature.

The noise heard on 25 July 2015 was emanating from the

basement and could be heard into the premises above.

The sound was going through the building structure.

The premises licence covered door numbers 43 – 45 on the

premises. The licence was primarily being applied for to

play music beyond 12:00 as a premises licence already

existed for alcohol and other regulated entertainment.

Presentation by the premises licence holder The General Manger of the premises, Mr David Beer informed the

Sub-Committee that:

Since taking over the business he had done his best to

promote it.

It was a vegan restaurant for customers who had a vegan

diet.

A number of temporary notices had been submitted these

had been carried out without incident.

He had attempted to engage with all parties including

Police, Licensing and Noise teams on a regular basis and

always ensured that events would be held in complete

compliance with the regulations to the best of his ability.

In relation to the clerical error outlined by Mr McLean,

whereby ‘25 August 2015’ had been written on the

application by mistake, he had brought this to the attention

of the Police. This had been an isolated incident. Measures

have been put in place since to avoid any future

administrative errors and there was no longer any loud

noise equipment present at the premises.

He would place a mid-range noise speaker in the premises

and inform the DJ to not play too loudly.

He was in close contact with the neighbours and would

make every effort not to cause a disturbance.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Beer informed the Sub-Committee that:

Brazas/ Club 43 no longer existed, the premises was

known as Vegbar.

The premises was located at number 43 and number 45

which was upstairs. The area downstairs was entirely

dedicated to the Vegbar.

He had taken over the business in March 2015.

He would put in place all measures possible to reduce

emanating sound.

The volume would be kept down, he had composite panels

that could reduce decibels, he was working with the DJ and

would advise him to keep the volume to a minimum and

doors would be kept closed.

Insulation would be placed to ensure that further noise

pollution would not be created.

The attending clientele had been transformed the clientele

at the premises were respectable.

As he understood more about licensing issues, he realised

that he must keep noise at minimum and invite licensing to

the premises and show them the efforts that were being

made.

There were two sides in the basement.

Part of the area would act as a dancefloor. This would be

occupied by a mid-range speaker with no added base.

It was his intention to take over as DPS whilst being the

premises licence holder.

He would be prepared to abide by conditions set to the

premises licence.

Adjournment and Decision At 7:36pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private. The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from Mr McLean and Mr Beer. Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to issue a counter notice so that the temporary event could not take place. The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the objections raised by the Noise team were credible and that permitting the event to proceed would undermine the public nuisance strand of the licensing objectives. RESOLVED: To issue a counter notice so that the temporary event could not take place. Announcement of Decision Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the Sub-Committee’s decision to issue a counter notice so that the temporary event could not take place for the following reasons: Having heard the representations the Sub-Committee noted that an event on 2 February 2015 resulted in an abatement notice being served and an incident on 25 July 2015 resulted in the instigation of legal proceedings against the premises licence holder for an alleged breach of the same. The Sub-Committee noted the premises licence holder had outlined his intention to become the DPS. However, against the above background, the

Sub-Committee duly accepted the submissions of Mr McLean that the building structure was unsuitable for the playing of amplified music. The Sub-Committee was accordingly satisfied that holding the proposed event at the building would very likely attract further noise complaints. The premises licence holder could still play music until midnight and operate within its existing premises licence. The Sub-Committee would issue a counter-notice and would invite the premises licence holder to communicate with officers and examine further the issues regarding the building itself.

The meeting ended at 10:00pm

CHAIR LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE

Wednesday 7 October 2015 Date of Despatch: Wednesday 30 September 2015 Contact for Enquiries: Nazyer Choudhury Tel: 020 7926 0028 Fax: (020) 7926 2361 E-mail: nchoudhury@lambeth.gov.uk Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk

The action column is for officers' use only and does not form a part of the formal record.