Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 257 KBVenue: Until further notice, all Council meetings will be held remotely
Contact: Natalie Williams , Governance Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Election of Chair Minutes: 1.1 Cllr Smyth was duly elected as Chair of the meeting. |
|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: 2.1 There were no apologies for absence. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest - Members to declare as appropriate Minutes: 3.1 There were no declarations of interest.
|
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting Minutes: 4.1 There were no minutes for consideration. |
|
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing Procedure Minutes: 5.1 The hearing procedure was noted by all present. |
|
|
Premises Licence Variation - Beechwood, Principal Place, 115 Worship Street,, EC2A 2BA Decision: 6.1 The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, Counsel for the applicant and the Licensing Authority. During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the sub-committee noted the following:
· Since the publication of the officer report, the applicant had proposed further conditions to address the concerns expressed. · Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was seeking to extend the hours on Sunday for the sale of alcohol from 10:00 to 01:00 hours and late night refreshment from 23:00 to 01:30 hours during the months of September to March, the premises was a restaurant and bar that would be exclusively showing sports events, the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the live screening of events, there would be no entry from 23.00 hours, an additional four conditions had been submitted to address the concerns related to crime and disorder and public nuisance, and no objections had been received from the local residents and Responsible Authorities except the Licensing Authority. · The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that the premises was located within the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (SPA), the proposed activity would further exacerbate the negative cumulative impact identified in the area as a result of the large concentration of licensed premises, and further clarification was sought regarding the nature of the televised sporting events. · Counsel for the applicant clarified that the bar would be broadcasting exclusively NFL American Football live sporting events and college football. · In response to questions from the sub-committee, Counsel for the applicant responded that the premises were located within a quiet corner of Shoreditch, an average 30 to 50 patrons were expected at any event which was 50% of the total seating capacity inside the premises, the ambience would be relaxed with games estimated to last approximately 2 to 3 hours, alcohol would be sold ancillary to food, patrons would need to book in advance for an event via a booking system which would allow management to know the numbers expected, a minimum of two SIA door supervisors would be employed to manage dispersal in order to minimise any negative impact on the area, no more than five smokers would be permitted at any one time and no drinks outside, the clientele would include local residents, Amazon was above the premises but it was closed on Sunday, and dispersal from the exit doors leading directly into the City of London would have minimal impact as there were not many residents living in the area. · A risk assessment would be undertaken for each event to determine if more than two SIA door supervisors were required. · The applicant reassured the sub-committee that there would be no vertical drinking at the premises and that alcohol would be served ancillary to food by waiter service or if ordered online. A full kitchen would be open until closing hours and patrons would have the choice of ordering food such as wings, nacho, burgers. · The applicant and the Licensing Authority’s representative agreed to the late night refreshment ceasing ... view the full decision text for item 6. Minutes: 6.1 The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, Counsel for the applicant and the Licensing Authority. During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the sub-committee noted the following:
· Since the publication of the officer report, the applicant had proposed further conditions to address the concerns expressed. · Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was seeking to extend the hours on Sunday for the sale of alcohol from 10:00 to 01:00 hours and late night refreshment from 23:00 to 01:30 hours during the months of September to March, the premises was a restaurant and bar that would be exclusively showing sports events, the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the live screening of events, there would be no entry from 23.00 hours, an additional four conditions had been submitted to address the concerns related to crime and disorder and public nuisance, and no objections had been received from the local residents and Responsible Authorities except the Licensing Authority. · The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that the premises was located within the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (SPA), the proposed activity would further exacerbate the negative cumulative impact identified in the area as a result of the large concentration of licensed premises, and further clarification was sought regarding the nature of the televised sporting events. · Counsel for the applicant clarified that the bar would be broadcasting exclusively NFL American Football live sporting events and college football. · In response to questions from the sub-committee, Counsel for the applicant responded that the premises were located within a quiet corner of Shoreditch, an average 30 to 50 patrons were expected at any event which was 50% of the total seating capacity inside the premises, the ambience would be relaxed with games estimated to last approximately 2 to 3 hours, alcohol would be sold ancillary to food, patrons would need to book in advance for an event via a booking system which would allow management to know the numbers expected, a minimum of two SIA door supervisors would be employed to manage dispersal in order to minimise any negative impact on the area, no more than five smokers would be permitted at any one time and no drinks outside, the clientele would include local residents, Amazon was above the premises but it was closed on Sunday, and dispersal from the exit doors leading directly into the City of London would have minimal impact as there were not many residents living in the area. · A risk assessment would be undertaken for each event to determine if more than two SIA door supervisors were required. · The applicant reassured the sub-committee that there would be no vertical drinking at the premises and that alcohol would be served ancillary to food by waiter service or if ordered online. A full kitchen would be open until closing hours and patrons would have the choice of ordering food such as wings, nacho, burgers. · The applicant and the Licensing Authority’s representative agreed to the late night refreshment ceasing ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
Premises Licence Variation - Blondies, 205a Lower Clapton Road, London, E5 8EG Additional documents: Decision:
7.1 The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, the applicant and the Other Persons. During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the sub-committee noted the following:
· Since the publication of the officer report, the applicant had submitted additional information. · The applicant was a responsible operator and owned the business for seven years. · She had successfully run over 100 TENs over 7 years without any complaints or issues. · The applicant emphasised that it was a rock and roll venue, a community hub and safe space especially for women and LGBT, it attracted local and international artists and fans, they had successfully gained accreditation of the Hackney Nights Accreditation Scheme, the activities would be controlled to minimise any impact on the area, they had submitted many policies including Noise and Nuisance Management, dispersal, counter terrorism and burns protection, they had held bi-monthly meetings which residents had not attended, the nuisance experienced in the area were not related to her premises, 181 people had signed the petition in support of the application and 57 written representations in support had been submitted. · The applicant responded that the noise management report findings indicated the sound limiter had been effective in controlling the sound levels within the premises and that the traffic noise from the busy road was louder than the noise inside. · The applicant replied that the drug use in Lower Clapton Road had been an ongoing issue but had gradually improved over the years. The Other person added that the issues of drug use and anti-social behaviour in the area were not related to this premises. · The Other Persons present expressed their support for the application emphasising that the premises provided a safe space particularly for female and elderly people, the venue was a community hub that had a positive impact on the neighbourhood, it had provided opportunities for young and old artists and technicians, it was a forward thinking bar playing live music, there had been no issues at the premises, they had confidence in the management, it was a great cultural asset for Clapton, the venue had attracted an international clientele and was well publicised on YouTube. · The Other Person indicated that the evidence submitted and the representation from the applicant had assured him that the premises was well managed, however, he expressed concern that the hours being sought for live music in a residential area especially on a school and working day would cause a public nuisance to local residents and in particular children. Local residents needed assurance from the applicant that the previous issues of nuisance would not recur and scheduling regular residents’ would provide reassurance for local residents as they could raise and have their concerns addressed. · The applicant confirmed that the capacity was 55 persons and that there were posters displayed asking patrons to leave quietly and that dispersal was staggered throughout the evening. · Music was played below conversation level to prevent a public nuisance and artists/bands understood they were playing in a ... view the full decision text for item 7. Minutes:
7.1 The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, the applicant and the Other Persons. During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the sub-committee noted the following:
· Since the publication of the officer report, the applicant had submitted additional information. · The applicant was a responsible operator and owned the business for seven years. · She had successfully run over 100 TENs over 7 years without any complaints or issues. · The applicant emphasised that it was a rock and roll venue, a community hub and safe space especially for women and LGBT, it attracted local and international artists and fans, they had successfully gained accreditation of the Hackney Nights Accreditation Scheme, the activities would be controlled to minimise any impact on the area, they had submitted many policies including Noise and Nuisance Management, dispersal, counter terrorism and burns protection, they had held bi-monthly meetings which residents had not attended, the nuisance experienced in the area were not related to her premises, 181 people had signed the petition in support of the application and 57 written representations in support had been submitted. · The applicant responded that the noise management report findings indicated the sound limiter had been effective in controlling the sound levels within the premises and that the traffic noise from the busy road was louder than the noise inside. · The applicant replied that the drug use in Lower Clapton Road had been an ongoing issue but had gradually improved over the years. The Other person added that the issues of drug use and anti-social behaviour in the area were not related to this premises. · The Other Persons present expressed their support for the application emphasising that the premises provided a safe space particularly for female and elderly people, the venue was a community hub that had a positive impact on the neighbourhood, it had provided opportunities for young and old artists and technicians, it was a forward thinking bar playing live music, there had been no issues at the premises, they had confidence in the management, it was a great cultural asset for Clapton, the venue had attracted an international clientele and was well publicised on YouTube. · The Other Person indicated that the evidence submitted and the representation from the applicant had assured him that the premises was well managed, however, he expressed concern that the hours being sought for live music in a residential area especially on a school and working day would cause a public nuisance to local residents and in particular children. Local residents needed assurance from the applicant that the previous issues of nuisance would not recur and scheduling regular residents’ would provide reassurance for local residents as they could raise and have their concerns addressed. · The applicant confirmed that the capacity was 55 persons and that there were posters displayed asking patrons to leave quietly and that dispersal was staggered throughout the evening. · Music was played below conversation level to prevent a public nuisance and artists/bands understood they were playing in a ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
|
Temporary Event Notices - Standing Item Minutes: 8.1 There were no temporary event notices for consideration.
|