Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Lambeth Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 12 December 2024 1.00 pm

December 12, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting
AI Generated

Summary

The Licensing Sub-Committee met to consider two applications. The first was for a new premises license for an off-license at 47 Waterloo Station, submitted by Gardshol Enterprises Limited. The committee determined that the application should be granted with additional conditions, including that all alcohol be kept in secure storage and only sold alongside food between 7am and 11am. The second application was a review of an existing premises license for Mosquito Bar at 5 Clapham High Street. After extensive discussion, the committee deferred its decision for five working days.

Gardshol Enterprises Limited

The sub-committee considered an application for a new premises license for the sale of alcohol off the premises at 47 Waterloo Station, submitted by Gardshol Enterprises Limited on 11 September 2024.

The application sought permission for the sale of alcohol from 7am to 10pm Monday to Friday, and 9am to 9pm on weekends. This fell outside the hours recommended in the council's Statement of Licensing Policy, which suggested an 11am start time for off-licenses in this location.

The applicant, Ms Lisa Gartcholl, explained that the premises would be a high-end deli, primarily selling imported South African produce. Alcohol sales would be ancillary to the main business.

The Licensing Authority raised concerns about the potential for street drinking and underage drinking1 given the requested hours and location. In response, Ms Gartcholl and her agent, Mr Peter Sparham, assured the committee that the business would operate responsibly. Ms Gartcholl stated she had 20 years experience running similar businesses at other major railway stations, and had a strong track record of working with police and licensing authorities. She outlined steps she would take to mitigate concerns, including operating a Challenge 25 policy2, joining the Business Crime Reduction Partnership, providing staff training, and working with other businesses in the station to address crime and antisocial behaviour. Mr Sparham explained that the nature of the business would deter nuisance elements, as the products were niche and sold at a higher price point. He offered two additional conditions to address the Licensing Authority's concerns:

  • All alcohol would be kept in secure storage outside of the hours stipulated in the licensing policy (7am to 11am), and only made available upon request.
  • Alcohol sales outside of these hours would be limited to customers who also purchased food.

Mr Paul Richards, speaking on behalf of the Licensing Authority, confirmed that they were satisfied with the proposed conditions. He stated that as the licensing authority, we are compelled to submit a representation [as the application is outside the licensing policy], or if we don't, that would be undermined in our of the licensing policy.

The sub-committee decided to grant the application with the conditions proposed by the applicant and the licensing authority. They found that the agreed conditions adequately addressed the Licensing Authority's concerns, making it appropriate and proportionate to grant the application.

Mosquito Bar

The sub-committee considered an application for the review of a premises license for Mosquito Bar at 5 Clapham High Street, submitted by Mr Thomas Pham on 12 September 2024.

Mr Pham, a resident of a flat above the bar, requested that the license be revoked, or its hours reduced to 11pm. He alleged that the venue was operating as a nightclub with very late hours, causing noise nuisance and attracting antisocial behaviour. He stated that I knew for when was an eye club. But I didn't expect the nightclub to be in my bedroom.

Supporting Mr Pham, Mr James Rankin, his legal representative, highlighted two key issues:

  • Noise: The bar's music was causing intolerable noise levels, particularly bass, which could be felt as vibrations in Mr Pham's flat. He stated that it is so bad that the vibrations from the premises downstairs can move his bed. These issues were exacerbated after 2am, when the council's Noise Team stopped operating, and despite Mr Pham taking measures to mitigate noise, including wearing earplugs and noise-cancelling headphones.
  • Antisocial behaviour: Mr Rankin presented evidence suggesting that the bar was attracting patrons leaving other venues after closing time, leading to increased noise, fights, and drug dealing outside the premises in the early hours. He stated that it's the behavior of patrons that come to the premises. Because they've got a set. The world. Leaving every other club around. The West end and also other parts of. To send on these. That last drink in inverted commas.

Mr Rankin argued that these issues were longstanding, despite attempts to engage with the bar and the council's Noise Team to resolve them. He further alleged that the bar's management had been rude and aggressive to council officers, and had deliberately increased music volume after Noise Team operating hours. He also suggested that the bar's landlord, Mr Hoz Madgera, was part funding the review application, indicating their own concerns about the bar's impact on their tenants.

Mr Luke Elford, the bar's legal representative, refuted these claims, stating that there have until now been no issues of significance and that the review application was a source of regret to the bar. He stated that we recognise how privileged we are to have such a late license.

Mr Elford presented an alternative account of the situation, arguing that the bar was a family owned and operated business that had operated at the location for over 25 years without significant issues. He described Mosquito Bar as a destination for the bar staff security afterwards, a place for hospitality workers to unwind after work.

Mr Elford highlighted a number of steps the bar had taken to promote the licensing objectives, including being an active member of the Clapham Business Improvement District, changing security companies, and working with the council's Noise Team to address noise concerns. He claimed that the recent noise issues were due to a faulty noise limiter, which had since been replaced and reset by Dr Ali Peyvandi, a Noise Officer from the council.

Mr Elford argued against reducing the bar's hours, stating that doing so would be akin to revoking its license given its business model and customer base.

PC Dave Watson, a licensing officer with the Metropolitan Police, confirmed that they were aware of crime and disorder issues associated with the bar, stating it had been a challenging premises to police. He reported that there had been 15 police callouts to the venue in the past six months, including incidents of violence, criminal damage, and theft. However, he did not support the revocation of the license, stating that what I think it does do it demonstrates a pattern of crime and disorder being recorded in the early hours of the morning. Instead, he suggested a 2am closing time to reduce the likelihood of crime and disorder.

Dr Peyvandi, speaking on behalf of the council's Public Protection team, explained that he had reset the bar's noise limiter at a level deemed appropriate for its operations. He stated that the new level allowed for the bar to operate without causing nuisance to residents, but acknowledged that residents would still be able to hear some bass. Dr Peyvandi refuted suggestions that he had set the limiter incorrectly, or that the levels he had set were too high.

The sub-committee asked extensive questions of the parties, seeking clarification on the nature of the noise and antisocial behaviour issues, the effectiveness of the noise limiter, the bar's dispersal policy, and the potential impact of reducing its hours.

In their final submissions, Mr Rankin maintained his position that the license should be revoked or its hours reduced. He argued that the bar's proposed conditions were insufficient to address the issues, stating they've still been unable to address this question of what happens when somebody has refused admission. He also criticized the bar's recent attempts to implement mitigation measures as scrambling at the last minute.

Mr Elford countered that the bar had offered positive solutions to address the concerns, including investing in a new noise limiter capable of controlling bass, installing full-height fencing around its smoking area to prevent interactions with passers-by, offering to guard Mr Pham's front door by extending the fenced area, and reducing the number of smokers allowed in the smoking area at one time. He stated that this is another case where a patient should even into your mind. We have some positive solutions to close to operating it. It's not patient over 25 years.

After a lengthy hearing, the sub-committee deferred its decision for five working days.

  1. Underage drinking is the consumption of alcohol by people under the legal drinking age. In the UK the legal drinking age is 18. ↩

  2. Challenge 25 is a scheme in the UK that requires anyone who looks under the age of 25 to provide proof of age when attempting to buy age-restricted products, such as alcohol. ↩

Attendees

Documents