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 5 September 2024 7.00 pm

September 5, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting
AI Generated

Summary

The Licensing Sub-Committee met to consider three applications. The first application by The Gypsy Hill Brewing Company for a new premises licence for units 5 and 6, 160 Hamilton Road, was granted. The second application by Willows Deli Limited for a variation of premises licence for 11 The Polygon, was granted. The third application by Mr Muhammed Zahid for a variation of a premises licence for Peri Peri Delicious, 9 Clapham High Street, was granted with an amendment to bring the requested hours in line with the preferred hours as set out in the council's statement of licensing policy.

The Gipsy Hill Brewing Company

The application was for the sale of alcohol, including in outside areas, and to show films. There were objections from the Licensing Authority, Ed and Joe Watson, Chris Armistead, Alan Webster, and Chux Uchendu. The applicant was represented by Luke Elford. He confirmed that the brewery had leased units 5 and 6 at 160 Hamilton Road, and that unit 5 was the site of their existing taproom.

The main issue for objectors was the potential for noise nuisance from customers using the outside area. Mr Elford's clients wanted to be able to use the outside area until 9.30pm each day. After this time the outside area would be available to use only for smoking. Customers would not be able to take drinks outside with them after 9.30pm and the seating would be rendered unusable. Mr Elford said:

Notices would be displayed outside the smoking areas, asking customers to be quiet and that would also be reinforced by staff and the Local Authority. The management of this external area would be highly regulated, and the external management plan included within the report plans out how the company would do so.

There were also concerns about vertical drinking. The applicants clarified that the capacity limits they were applying for related to the number of people seated. Mr Elford said that customers would be expected to use the seating provided, and that this would mitigate the potential for vertical drinking. The Licensing Authority was concerned about the lack of a plan of the external area showing where the tables and chairs would be situated. Mr Elford said that, whilst this was not a requirement of the licence, his clients had provided one.

Mr Uchendu, who lived in a house on Romany Road which backed onto the industrial estate said that he and his son had been disturbed by noise from the brewery for several years. Mr Uchendu said that:

if I'm in my bedroom I can literally hear people talking outside the taproom and I don't just mean in general I can be like I can hear the words so it's just really really apparent.

Mr Armistead said that whilst he and other residents on Romany Road were supportive of the brewery, they were concerned that, without appropriate conditions, noise would become a problem. He said that table plan B could be used for private events:

which could be a Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday night so it's not just limited to Friday, Saturday and Sunday

The Licensing Authority was initially concerned that the application did not include a number of conditions that had been agreed with residents as part of a previous application to vary the licence for unit 5, which the applicant had subsequently withdrawn. Mr Richards said:

The omission of some of the previously agreed conditions appears to demonstrate that the issues previously raised by residents have not been taken seriously by the applicant.

However, following discussions with the applicant, Mr Richards confirmed that he was satisfied with the revised conditions. He said that:

all 37 of the conditions that has been supplied I agree with and therefore my representation would be has been all my concerns have been met

The Licensing Sub-Committee granted the licence subject to the agreed conditions. In addition, they added a condition which required the applicant to deploy sufficient seating to mitigate the likelihood of vertical drinking.

Willows Deli Limited

The application was to vary the existing premises licence to extend the hours for the sale of alcohol on Fridays and Saturdays, to amend conditions relating to the consumption of alcohol off the premises and to remove a condition which prohibited the placing of tables and chairs outside of the premises. The applicant was seeking to apply to the council's Big Shift Programme to install a parklet outside of the premises.

There were objections to the application from Agnes Orosz, Matthew Roach, Steve Taylor, and William Hill. They were concerned about the potential for the outside area to create noise nuisance. They were also concerned that the narrow pavement would become obstructed. Mr Taylor said that the parklet would:

force pedestrians into a contraflow cycle lane and road.

Mr Roach said that:

this isn't a straightforward case of just putting seats outside a restaurant.

He explained that the restaurant was situated in a corridor of buildings, which meant that noise would reverberate and spread to a large number of residential properties. Mr Roach said that the applicants had:

insisted on going into a shop unit [and] asked us to drop our suggestions if we made a deal with them and so we look we didn't want to stop a local business moving in it's good for the community so in good faith you know myself and Steve representing lots of the residents here made an agreement one of the conditions was that they agreed to was that they wouldn't apply to outdoors outdoor seating now it's my belief that we could have got that stopped in the planning process and stop this business they are now trying to circumvent that and avoid the planning process by going through the parklet scheme now I don't know if that's legal or what or whatever but surely that that is immoral and that must count for something with the licensing committee surely.

The applicants, Mr Tom Bolton and Ms Rebecca Howes, explained that they needed to be able to apply for outside seating in order for their business to be viable in the long term. Ms Howes said:

this seems the way that especially where the community use that area is it would be the best thing for us to survive.

Mr Bolton said that they did not anticipate a significant increase in deliveries to the restaurant as a result of being able to provide additional seating.

The Licensing Sub-Committee granted the application subject to a number of conditions that were agreed with the Licensing Authority. These included a condition that all tables and chairs had to be removed from the outside area by 10pm on Sundays to Thursdays and 11pm on Fridays and Saturdays.

Peri Peri Delicious

The application was to vary the existing licence to extend the hours for the provision of late night refreshment.

The Licensing Authority objected to the application on the grounds that the hours sought were outside of the preferred hours in the statement of licensing policy1. Mr Richards said:

The hours for that for a late night refreshment house in a district town centre are Sunday to Thursday midnight and Friday and Saturday 1 a.m.

There were also objections from several nearby businesses who were concerned about potential noise and anti-social behaviour from customers. They alleged that the applicant had already been breaching the conditions of their existing licence by opening later than permitted.

The applicant, Mr Muhammed Zahid, was represented by Mr Surendra Panchal. He said that Mr Zahid had extensive experience of managing late night food businesses and that he understood the importance of complying with licensing conditions. Mr Panchal said:

looking at those he has tremendous experience in running premises which are late licenses. Hence he understands what he's going to be looking into.

Mr Panchal explained that the premises would operate as a safe haven and that there would be SIA security staff on duty to help ensure the safety of customers. Mr Panchal said:

The SIS staff will be will be controlling people outside and as we mentioned earlier they'll be a safe haven so if there was a problem from anybody we would be asking that person immediately to be put into the safe haven and we will be discussing with them. There will be a conflict management course done by Mr Zaid and the SIS staff which is very important the conflict management course does help how to tackle such kind of new public nuisances if it's taken place.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had successfully operated under a number of temporary event notices in recent months. They also noted that the applicant had offered a number of conditions aimed at mitigating any potential nuisance.

The Sub-Committee acknowledged the concerns of the objectors, but ultimately decided to grant the licence with an amendment to the hours to bring them in line with those set out in the council's statement of licensing policy. They noted that the applicant had provided comprehensive details of the steps he would take to promote the licensing objectives, and that he had experience of operating late night food businesses.

  1. The statement of licensing policy is a document which sets out the council's policies on licensing matters. It includes guidance on the hours that licensed premises should be allowed to open. ↩

Attendees

Documents