Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Conference Hall - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ. View directions
Contact: Lisa Weaver, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1358, Email: lisa.weaver@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on the agenda. Minutes: None declared. |
|
Additional documents:
Decision: That the application by Location Cafe for a new premises licence for 232 High Road NW10 2NX be adjourned.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that in the absence of the applicant, the application should be adjourned having exercised it discretion under regulation 12 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 to allow the applicant to respond to the concerns raised in the written representations. However, the sub-committee also stated that the applicant should be advised that should he fail to attend a future hearing for whatever reason, then the application may be considered in his absence.
Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the application by Location Cafe for a new premises licence for 232 High Road NW10 2NX be deferred pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. |
|
Additional documents:
Decision: That the application by Jose Rocha for a new premises licence for Windrush (212 High Street NW10 4SY) be approved pursuant to the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that there was no evidence in the written representations submitted to suggest that the application would undermine the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm) and accordingly the application was agreed.
Minutes: The Senior Regulatory Services Manager informed the Sub Committee that the application for a new premises licence for Windrush (212 High Street NW10 4SY) had been received and objections had been received from local residents.
The applicant was invited to speak and highlighted the following points: · They had been operating the business since 25 October 2013 as a restaurant and had no affiliation with the premises prior to this · Following a visit from the Police all recommendations had been adhered to and carried out · No complaints from, neighbours had been received since opening the premises and operating until 2.30am on occasions · Notices asking customers to leave quietly had been displayed · A variety of meals including a takeaway services was offered at the premises · SIA door staff were provided despite the premises not being a night club · The fire service had advised of risk assessments required and were impressed by security arrangements · They had been working with local resident associations and wanted to bring something positive to the community · Local taxi numbers were made available to assist in persons getting home and not loitering
During questions of the applicant the following points were clarified: · Currently the business was trialling new ideas and had not needed sound limiters as had only had background music during events · The premises had previously held a licence until 4am · As well as birthday parties it was hoped that community events such as black history, seasonal celebrations and poetry evenings would be held at the premises · There was a maximum seated capacity of 50 persons for the venue
Leroy Simpson, Chair of Harlesden Town Team was invited to speak in objection to the application. He expressed concerns that should a licence be granted until 4am, it would give opportunity for the premises to be opened late every occasion. He highlighted that the premises was situated close to residential housing and residents had expressed concern that the premises could potentially become a nightclub again. He concluded that parking outside the premises was limited and taxis were not always easy to come by at 4am.
The Legal Advisor informed members that considerations regarding parking did not relate to the licensing objectives and should be disregarded.
The applicant reiterated that they had not received any complaints from residents or the police and intended to only open late on seasonal occasions and events. They continued to clarify that there was no plan to aggravate neighbours and only had a small sound system with which the noise team were more than welcome to inspect. In response to concerns regarding patrons leaving the premises, the applicant clarified that intoxicated persons would not be served and had no intentions of lowering its standards.
In summary the applicant explained that they had invested a lot of money in the premises and hoped to create something good for the community.
Leroy Simpson concluded that he did not object to the premises rather the 4am closing due to the risk of regular events and customers loitering until ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Additional documents:
Decision: That the application by Wayout Dreams Community Project Limited for a variation of the premises licence for 71-73 high street NW10 4NS be approved subject to the following conditions being added to the licence:
1) Notices advertising the number of a local licensed taxi service shall be displayed in a prominent position in the premises.
2) Facilities within the premises shall be made available for customers to await taxis.
The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that there was no evidence in the written representations submitted to suggest that the application would undermine the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevent of public nuisance, ensuring public safety and protection of children from harm) and accordingly the application was agreed. Minutes: The Senior Regulatory Services Manager informed the sub committee that an application by Wayout Dreams Community Project Limited for a variation of the premises licence for '71-73 High Street' (London, NW10 4NS) had been received with objections presented by local residents. The Legal Advisor clarified that the process to be followed was a fair and democratic process.
The applicant was invited to speak and made the following points: · The application was to extend the hours to sell alcohol · The premises was a self funded community centre and all profits went back into the centre · The premises had previously had their licence reduce and subsequently the premises had changed the nature of its business and customer base · The majority of current customers were members living in the vicinity or guests of members · The community centre offered a gym, dance classes, catered for events such as weddings or christenings as well as fundraising · There had been over 30 events in the past 3.5 years which had all been successful following working closely with the local police · There had not been any issues with immediate neighbours regarding the events held · It would not be cost effective to hold events regularly and would be to enable occasions such as weddings to be celebrated a little longer and for the community centre to be sustainable in the current financial climate · Events that served alcohol had tight alcohol controls and SIA door staff were always present and to the required standard During questions of the applicant the following points were clarified: · The applicant currently received funding but due to the ending of many government grants wished to become self funded and sustainable for the future · Members attended many daytime activities at the centre and the applicants knew most using the centre · There was a residential property adjacent to the premises although there had never been any complaints received and had complied with advice from the noise pollution team for TENS · There had previously been incidents of antisocial behaviour in the past which had been resolved in changes to use of the premises and clientele · They had learnt their lesson from the previous reduction in licensing hours and had changed the business to a successful community venue with a new management team Councillor Hector was invited to speak and raised the following concerns: · She had received a number of complaints and concerns from local residents · Residents were concerned that if granted, the premises would revert back to its old ways · Residents had highlighted issues of dispersal at the end of the night with many persons waiting for public transport or loitering until the tube recommenced · Cars often played loud music outside and rubbish would be left by patrons leaving the premises after purchasing food · There was concern over children being exposed to alcohol and crime and disorder should the premises hold christenings and birthday parties During questions of Councillor Hector, the following points were clarified: · Many of the residents concerns were based on past events and it ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Additional documents:
Decision: That the premises licence for the Woody Grill 44 High Road Willesden be amended to include the following conditions to the licence in order to uphold the licensing objective (Public Nuisance).
1) Storage of waste oils should be kept within the curtilage of the building at all times 2) To ensure that refuse bins are able to store all daily refuse and be securely locked at all times
Following the application for a review of the premises licence by Abraham Ryan, Cyrus Abbasian and Malcolm McCaig the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee (B) felt that with the two imposition of the two conditions aforesaid, the immediate concerns the applicant had raised regarding waste should now deal with the problem effectively giving rise to the promotion of the licensing objectives in respect of prevention of public safety and prevention of public nuisance.
Minutes: The Senior Regulatory Services Manager informed the sub committee that an application by Abraham Ryan, Cyrus Abbasian and Malcolm McCaig for a review of premises licence for The Woody Grill (44 High Road Willesden NW10 2QA) had been received on the grounds of public nuisance, promotion of public safety and crime and disorder. She highlighted that the premises did not sell alcohol.
Abraham Ryan was invited to speak and raised the following points: · The premises’ flue admitted smoke and fumes 24 hours a day which created noise and smells making his balcony unusable · He suffered emphysema which was exasperated by the flue. · Changes to the flue including a 1m extension had reduced the smoke but fumes were still omitted · A second inspection from the Council was anticipated in regard to whether the changes were acceptable. · There had been issues of refuse being left on Metropolitan Court and communications from the buildings management company were ignored for several months. · The bin had now been relocated but there was concern that it could reoccur · The Woody Grilled stored fat in the back yard of its premises which omitted smells and there was concern that it may attract rodents · Customers frequently parked on the entrance to Metropolitan Court · The premises was not displaying notices asking customers to leave quietly · People loitered around the premises and residents had witnessed antisocial behaviour as well as incidents of drug deals · He had made attempts to resolve issues with the premises which had been unsuccessful and generally felt the location of the premises was unsuitable The Legal Advisor informed members that parking issues were not a licensable activity and should be disregarded.
During questions of the applicant the following points were clarified: · The flue was checked by the noise team prior to Christmas although he hoped they would come around again as he believed it was not doing the job it should do · The rubbish situation had improved although employees occasionally left personal waste and the management company had been notified · Woody Grill had separate access to their back yard and did not need to gain access via Metropolitan Court · Fat stored in the back yard was leaking through into the soil of Metropolitan Court gardens · There were 37 apartments at Metropolitan Court and six above the Woody Grill The licence holder for Woody Grill was invited to speak and made the following points: · They had made large improvements to the premises and had tried to be peaceful with their neighbours · Improvements to waste removal had been made with it now being removed daily following contracting a new company · There had not been any complaints from the properties above and it was believed this was the first complaint with one of the applicants withdrawing their complaints · The extractor flue had been checked and approved by the Council · They had addressed the issues raised and were happy to work with the management company should issues occur in future During questions of the licence holder the following points were ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
Additional documents:
Decision: That the premises licence for Mace, 17 College Parade, Salusbury Road be revoked following the application by the metropolitan police for a review of the premises licence due to the failure to promote the licensing objectives, in (protection of children from harm, prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance. The sub committee were advised that 4 separate recorded incidents had taken place on the premises where a minor was sold alcohol the seriousness of which could not be overlooked by the Council as a responsible Licensing Authority. The sub-committee were of the opinion that the management was weak and demonstrated very little detailed knowledge of the licensing regime when questioned. The sub-committee were not convinced that the licence premises holder had sufficient measures in place to safeguard the interests of children so as not to have a repeat performance of an underage alcohol sale. The decision to revoke the licence was not taken lightly by the sub-committee and all of the circumstances of the case were properly considered. The sub-committee will only use the power of revocation as a last resort and when it is proportionate and reasonable to do so and where such grave concerns are highlighted as a cause for concern that are damaging to the licensing objectives (Protection of Children from Harm, Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance, Public Safety). However, the circumstances of the case were of such a sensitive nature, it was necessary that the correct balance was struck, in making sure that the public were best protected when considering the upholding of the licensing objectives given the weigh of evidence put forward by the Police. The sub-committee during its decision making process had regard to the licence holders human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (namely Article 6, Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol) the Councils statement of licensing policy in addition to the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. Accordingly, in all of the circumstances of the case it was felt that the sub-committee’s decision was reasonable and proportionate Additionally the panel noted that the licence premises holder failed to work effectively in partnership with the Police by undertaking recommendations to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.
Minutes: The Senior Regulatory Services Manager informed the sub committee that an application by Metropolitan Police for a review of the premises licence for Mace (17 College Parade, Salusbury Road, NW6 6RN) had been received under the grounds of protection of children, prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder. The Legal Advisor explained to the sub committee that they had the following decision making powers: · Modify and add conditions to the licence, · Exclude licensable activity from the licence, · Remove the designated premises supervisor (DPS), · Suspend the licensing for a period of time no greater than three months, and · Revoke the licence.
The Metropolitan Police were invited to make their representation and highlighted the following points: · There were a variety of witness statements from police, neighbourhood police, residents and parents detailing the sale of alcohol to underage persons up to December 2013. · Evidence of a 13 year old girl being sold alcohol, resulting in her being seriously ill during February 2014 was included in the pack. · The premises had been offered a variety of opportunities to work with the Police to address issues but had not cooperated. · An action plan was introduced to address issues but had not been actioned. · The premises had chosen to not follow legal advise and continued to sell alcohol during the review consultation. · Youths loitered outside of the shop and on occasions were drinking alcohol. · CCTV had failed to be provided on request. · The shop failed to promote the licensing objectives and the Police felt the licence should be revoked.
During questions of the Metropolitan Police the following points were clarified: · None of the actions identified in the action plan had been completed to date following its submission to the premises in August 2012. · Fixed penalty notices had been issues following the sale of alcohol to underage persons. · A warrant was issued under section 23 of the misuse of drugs act on 8 March 2013 and Nazeem Bashir was charged for possession of cannabis.
The Legal Advisor informed the Sub Committee that the premises owners had made a request for the hearing to be adjourned due to their legal representative being unable to attend. He highlighted that the sub committee had discretion to do so but should consider the public interest and whether adjournment was appropriate. The premises owner informed the sub committee that their solicitor was unable to attend due to being booked for another appeal and although enquiring at other solicitors, none had been able to attend on behalf of the premises. The Metropolitan Police highlighted that they felt it was in the public interest to continue with the hearing and expressed concern that if adjourned, the premises would be able to operate and a serious incident could occur. The sub committee adjourned to deliberate the request for an adjournment by the premises owner. On reconvening the sub committee confirmed that the hearing would continue to take place due to the high public interest. The Legal Advisor highlighted that the hearing followed ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |