Agenda and minutes

MOVED by Councillor Paul McGlone, SECONDED by Councillor Shirley Cosgrave and:

RESOLVED: That Councillor Leanne Targett-Parker be elected as Chair of the meeting.

Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.

There were no declarations of pecuniary interests.

To approve and sign the minutes of the hearings held on 7 and 22 November 2012 as correct records of the proceedings.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 7 and 22 November 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as correct records of the proceedings.

(Report 184/12-13 and appendices)

Executive Director of Housing, Regeneration and Environment.

Contact: John Smith, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 6140

Email: Jsmith5@lambeth.gov.uk

Presentation by the Head of Consumer Protection and Sustainability

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a new premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 8 and 9 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as being particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 5.9 of the report on page 30.

The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the five representations received, four from local residents and one from the Police.  The representations dealt with public nuisance and the location of the premises being within the Clapham High Street saturation zone. 

A map and photographs of the premises were circulated.

In response to a query from the Chair regarding the premises licence application, it was confirmed by the applicant’s representative, Mr Hopkins that although other partners were involved in the business, it had been agreed to only include Mr Joseph’s name on the application.  Mr Joseph was ill and therefore asked one of his partners to attend in his absence.

Presentation by the Applicant

The applicant’s representative Mr Hopkins and another partner of the business were in attendance.

Mr Hopkins informed the Sub-Committee that:-

• The venue was a Caribbean restaurant that sold food and catered for the multi-cultural community but other ethnicities also attended
• The venue was a niche shop that had been in operation for six months and the application sought was for an extension to the opening hours at weekends
• CCTV cameras were in operation on the premises and CCTV notices would also be displayed.  The applicant intended to liaise with the police in order to ensure that the CCTV requirements were met
• A member of staff would be on duty at the premises
• Staff training would be undertaken
• The serving of drinks to intoxicated clients would be deterred.  Similarly, any clients that appeared to be under the influence of alcohol would be denied entry into the premises.  Notices to that effect along with an incident log would be kept.  Any disorder on the premises would be reported by staff to the police
• The residents who had submitted representations lived a considerable distance away from the venue.  Therefore, the impact for those residents was minimal and he urged members to take this into consideration during their decision-making, especially as a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) establishment was situated nearer to them
• He admitted the breach of the licence on 30 September 2012, as observed by PC Strange, when hot food was served to a customer after the imposed closing hour
• The clientele for the establishment was aimed at mini cab and bus drivers.  Red route parking outside the premises only applied until the hours of 7.00 am.  Therefore, clients could purchase their food and leave the premises quickly
• Two members of staff would serve in the premises.  Also, a manager would be on duty on Friday and Saturdays.  The cleaner, as well as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

Presentation by the Head of Consumer Protection and Sustainability

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a variation to the current premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 8, 9 and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as being particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of the report on page 30.

The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the two representations that had been received, from the Police and Trading Standards.  The representations dealt with crime and disorder issues.

Presentation by the Applicant

The applicant’s representative and Mr Anthony Olakunle Fabusina, proprietor were in attendance.

On opening his presentation, the applicant’s representative explained that Mr Fabusina had not been given sufficient notice of the hearing (8 days instead of 10).  Therefore, Mr Fabusina only had limited time to obtain a solicitor.  The council also failed to inform Mr Fabusina that Trading Standards had made a representation and he had only obtained this information from the council’s website. 

The applicant’s representative also queried why the representations pack was not available to the public, as the public had not been given a chance to look at representations submitted by the Police and Trading Standards.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that representations were not usually disseminated or available on the council’s website.  However, agenda packs were sent out to all parties, including persons who had made representations, and were available at the meeting.

The Chair asked the applicant’s representative whether he wanted to apply for an adjournment but this suggestion was refused.

The applicant’s representative informed the Sub Committee that:

• When the applicant’s shop was closed between 23:00 – 03:00 it was an invitation for street dealers to use the space.  However, when the premises were open no street dealing occurred
• Conditions had been placed on Mr Fabusina’s licence that he must prevent drug dealers from entering the premises and he had been provided with photographs of these dealers.  When Mr Fabusina had produced the photographs to dealers, he had been threatened, but as a result, they had relocated somewhere else
• He was in receipt of several letters from shop owners that supported the opinion that street dealing around the premises no longer occurred.  Therefore, he felt the representations submitted by the Police and Trading Standards were three years out of date
• Mr Fabusina suggested that he effectively operated as a Police Community Support Officer because when he was open, his presence thwarted unlawful activity and where it occurred he would either intervene or report the same to the authorities
• If the licence was granted, this would enable Mr Fabusina to partake in his share of the trade along with other licensed shops that opened until 03:00 in the vicinity
• No objections had been received from residents of the flats who were customers of Mr Fabusina
• Mr Fabusina’s premises also operated as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

(Report 185/12-13 and appendices)

Executive Director of Housing, Regeneration and Environment.

Contact: John Smith, Licensing Manager, 020 7926 6140

Email: Jsmith5@lambeth.gov.uk

Presentation by the Head of Consumer Protection and Sustainability

The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a new Sex Establishment Licence (SEV). The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the Home Office Guidance for Sexual Entertainment Venues, and to Sections 3 and 5, and Appendix 2, of the Lambeth Sex Establishment Policy, as being particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were to grant the application with the standard conditions, grant the application with amendments to the standard conditions, or to refuse the application.

The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the 136 representations received, including one from an elected member.  A petition with 168 signatories had also been received against the application.

A map and photographs of the premises were circulated.

The Chair enquired about the petition which had not been made available in the representations pack.  In response, the Head of Consumer Protection and Sustainability produced a copy of the petition for the Sub-Committee (which were all similar in letter format).  The Chair proceeded to read one of the letters to the applicant and his representatives.

In response to questions from a Member, the Head of Consumer Protection and Sustainability confirmed that the premises had provided adult entertainment since April 2006.  The reason for the application resulted from legislation recently adopted for SEVs to hold a licence to operate.

Presentation by the Applicant

The applicant, Mr Eduardo Gomes, his son and the applicant’s solicitors were in attendance.

The applicant’s solicitor informed the Sub-Committee that:-

• The application had been made as a result of new legislation that was in place regarding SEVs
• He referred the Sub-Committee to page 76 of the agenda pack and emphasised that although a number of complaints had been received, no review had been called for.  Therefore, the complaints made did not amount to warrant a review of the licence
• He made reference to the licence (page 84 of the agenda pack) and pointed out that the hours of operation for the premises had been changed to Wednesday – Saturday from 9.00 pm – 2.00 am and from 10.00 pm – 4.00 am on other days
• Since April 2006, the licence had traded satisfactorily under the old regime with no problems made
• The objections raised issues regarding the venue being situated near to schools and churches but this had been cancelled out, as the hours had been changed
• The premises are situated within a mixed used area consisting of residential and commercial use.  The area consisted of mixed licence uses and they traded within the hours where there would be pedestrian footfall and vehicles.  Therefore, the character of the area was not exclusively residential
• The premises had been off the radar since 2006 and the vehicular and pedestrian issues would not change
• He acknowledged that objections needed to be raised but he believed that these were no longer necessary
• He referred to the police conditions outlined on page 114 of the agenda papers and stated that no problems had arisen.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a