Agenda and minutes

To confirm the procedure for the hearing (attached).

The procedures were noted.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2012 (attached).

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

To consider applications to enable the carrying out of the business of the sale of ice cream from a van on two Sundays per month and award a Street Trading Licence for the vacant site.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item was Mr Marchese, on behalf of his sister, Mrs Cavallino.  Mr Marchese said that his family had been trading in the area for a number of years and informed members about the history of the current arrangement for the site.  He requested that the licence be granted to Mrs Cavallino.

RESOLVED that the street trading licence be granted to CarmeliaCavallino.  The reasons for the decision were:

“Carlo Marchese clearly intended to pass on his street trading licence to his family, and had done so to his son.  It appeared that the nature of the arrangement protected the trading rights of each of the three parties, by each having a separate street trading licence, which would prohibit a partnership type survivorship passing Mr Marchese’s licences to the remaining two survivors occurring.

Mr Galletta already held a street trading licence at the site (permitting trade from Monday to Sunday inclusive and Monday to Saturday inclusive per month). Carmelia Cavallino did not, but had extensive experience with her brother, of managing the pitch before and after her father’s and brother’s deaths.”

To hear and determine an opposed application for the variation of a premises licence.

Report of the Head of Consumer Protection attached.

Participating in this item were:

·         Raymond Defazio – applicant

·         Alun Thomas – solicitor on behalf of the applicant

·         KarinehGrigorian – interested party

·         PH Hannah – interested party

·         Peter Willan – interested party

·         Ian Bruce – interested party

Mr Thomas presented the application and said that there were a number of subtle differences between the existing licence and the one being applied for.  He said that the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) had not been addressed because legislation said that applicants needed only to do this when objections were raised; he had always intended to address the CIZ verbally at the hearing in any case.

It was stated that there was to be a “real reduction” in capacity as the applicant was surrendering the outside area on the new licence (despite this area being prohibited from use by planning issues).  It was also reported that Med Kitchen was to remain a food-led business.  Conditions on the new licence would ensure that it remained a restaurant by providing for a specific layout to the premises.  A condition was also being offered which prohibited off-sales.

Some of the conditions that the applicant wanted to remove were covered by statutory conditions on all premises licences and Mr Thomas hoped that this would not be a cause for concern amongst sub-committee members.

Mr Thomas raised a concern relating to Annex 3b.5 “Alcohol may be sold to persons partaking in a table meal”.  He suggested that this condition was unenforceable because it did not restrict any activity, simply permit it.  Mr Thomas stated that the applicant could have taken advantage of the wording of this condition. However, Mr Defazio was seeking to demonstrate that he was a responsible licence holder by not doing so.

The applicant reported that they were seeking to attract after work clientele who often did not wish to purchase a meal, but perhaps wanted to stop for a quick drink before going home.  Mr Defazio said that he was actively involved in trying to resolve the issue of drunken behaviour on the riverside, but stressed that this problem was not related to his premises.  It was noted that the applicant had a number of other problem-free businesses in the area and he invited those in attendance to visit them.

A condition relating to a SIA certified door person was offered, whereby they would be present from 7.00pm to closing on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.  It was suggested that this was an improvement on the existing condition.

Mr Thomas was concerned that some of the interested parties lived on the opposite side of the river and questioned what the “likely impact” on these objectors would be.  He also said that a precedent would not be set and there was case law stating this to be so.

In response to a question from a member of the sub-committee, the applicant offered a condition whereby tables at the premises must be laid out for dining at all times.  The legal definition of a table meal was also clarified by the Legal Adviser to the Licensing Sub-Committee. It was explained that those customers that wanted to drink could comply with the Annex 3b.5 condition by being offered “sandwiches and sausages on sticks” or a “substantial sandwich accompanied by beetroot and pickles eaten at a table”.

Following questions from interested parties, Mr Defazio confirmed Med Kitchen’s target market as being those already present in the town, particularly office workers who wanted a relaxing glass of wine in an attractive riverside setting; he was not seeking to attract additional visitors to Richmond town centre.  The demand for this application had been measured on the number of potential customers that had been turned away, particularly in the late afternoon period.  It was also stated that the provision of a waiter/waitress service was unique for this kind of venue in Richmond.

Mr Willan drew members’ attention to the opinions of counsel, which had been commissioned by the Richmond Society.  He confirmed that he objected to the removal of conditions 3b1 and 3b5 because it gave the potential for a substantial increase in bar-led activity in Richmond town centre.  He added that the CIZ was a relevant consideration and believed that there was a responsibility on any applicant to demonstrate that their applied for activity would have no effect on the CIZ.  Mr Willan raised concerns about a lack of information provided by the applicant in advance of the hearing, stating that he felt this made it difficult to comment on what was being applied for.  Mr Willan stated that some of the conditions being offered were inadequate, particularly the one pertaining to a single door person.

In response to questions, Mr Willan said that he was concerned that this would lead to a substantial bar being formed, which could cater for 150 drinkers at any one time.  He added that previous applications were unable to find a solution to the concerns raised because of the size of the premises and its location within a CIZ.

Mr Bruce supported Mr Willan’s assertion relating to a lack of information prior to the hearing.  He gave examples of instances where he had been subjected to verbal abuse by drunken people in Richmond Town Centre, and because of this, he valued the existence of the CIP.

Mr Grigorian supported the view that there was a lack of information in advance of the hearing.

Mr Hannah said that he had visited another Med Kitchen with Mr Willan.  He said that there was limited noise outside the premises, although he added that the St John’s Wood location was a different type of setting.  He added that permitting 150 more ‘solus’ or ‘vertical’ drinkers in an area, where there was already an issue with antisocial behaviour, was a cause for concern.

Mr Willan provided a closing statement on behalf of interested parties, emphasising points that had already been made, particularly around the potential for a high capacity bar and the associated risks of such an operation being introduced to Richmond.

Mr Thomas made closing submissions on behalf of the applicant.  He emphasised that none of the issues raised related to Med Kitchen or its operation and stated that the applicant was operating a reputable establishment and would continue to do so.  He suggested that the committee needed to consider the likely impact of granting and whether it would have an impact on the CIZ.  He said that there was a real reduction in the number of covers, by reducing the outside area from the licence.

RESOLVED that the application be refused.  The reasons for the decisions were:

1.             The Licensing Sub-Committee could not be assured the ground floor area would not be patronised mainly for drinking without table meals. 

2.             The premises falls into an area where public nuisance has been well documented and any increase in drinking without food would result in increased cumulative impact.

3.             Due to the site location, the increase in drinking without food would result in additional numbers visiting adjoining premises and conflict arising therefrom (Luminar Leisure applied);

4.                  The Licensing Sub-Committee had considered their decision to permit an exemption to the CIP with reference to the Licensing Sub-Committee decision in “Pigs Ears”, Hill Rise, Richmond. However, the style of operation, the maximum numbers in the premises, and its location away from Richmond Riverside does not render it a fair comparison. Both matters were considered on their own merits.