Agenda and minutes

Venue: Remote Meeting via Zoom

Contact: Chris Cadman-Dando
Democratic Services Officer
01903 221364  Email: chris.cadman-dando@adur-worthing.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

LCSC/8/21-22

Declarations of Interest / Substitute Members

Members and Officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda. Declarations should also be made at any stage an interest becomes apparent during the meeting.

 

If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest

 

Councillor Rosey Whorlow declared substitution for Councillor Hazel Thorpe

LCSC/9/21-22

Public Question Time

To receive any questions from Members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 11.2

 

(Note: Public Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

Minutes:

There were no questions form the Public

LCSC/10/21-22

Licensing Act 2003 - Application for a new Premises Licence - Karma Lounge 171-173 Tarring Road pdf icon PDF 8 MB

To consider a report by the Interim Director for Communities, copy attached as item 3

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Before the Committee was a report by the Interim Director for Communities a copy of which had been circulated to all members, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as item 3. The application before members had been the subject of formal representation by two responsible authorities and 16 members of the public and it therefore fell to the sub-committee to determine.

 

Presentation of the Licensing Officer

 

The Licensing Officer introduced the report to the Committee. Of note Members were given the proposed hours of opening and told that the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) was applying for a personal licence. Sussex Police had withdrawn their objections following restriction of hours. The applicant confirmed that

 

Questions for the Licensing Officer from Members

 

There were no questions for Members

 

Representations by Members of the Public

 

There were members of the public present at the meeting whose representations are summarised as follows

 

·         The applicant had a previous premises that had operated poorly;

·         The applicant’s previous refusal to co-operate with authorities was concerning;

·         Seating for 50 outside and 50 inside would mean a capacity of 100;

·         The application had given the impression that the premises was looking like a bar rather than a restaurant;

·         The way that building had taken place had been done so without any regard to the public or authorities;

·         There was a fear that the premises would not be controlled properly;

·         Noise from the outside seating could not be controlled;

·         Not enough people were made aware of the application;

·         The application was causing residents anxiety;

·         Although the premises was on a commercial street, there were three residential streets that ran parallel to the premises;

·         Residents had concerns about the premises causing anti-social behaviour;

·         Alcohol consumption at the premises would be likely to cause sleep disturbance;

·         The actions of the applicant relating to building at the premises had eroded trust with residents;

·         Building had taken place at the premises without planning permission;

·         It was doubted that the applicant would be respectful of conditions;

·         A resident claimed that it was doubtful that the premises would be a restaurant and that it would likely be a bar given the small size of the kitchen;

·         It was questioned as to whether patrons could buy drinks without food;

·         A resident told that the previous 4 months had been miserable and had created a negative impact on their lives;

·         Photographs in the committee report did not show the premises’ proximity to a parallel residential street;

·         The forecourt was below the window of a room used by children which was not acceptable;

·         Children walking home from school would be subjected to adults drinking;

·         Anti-social behaviour late at night would frighten children living in the vicinity of the premises;

·         Families needed to be safeguarded;

·         The property was ingle glazed which would not help noise prevention;

·         There would be no issue if the premises operated as a bakery without an alcohol licence;

·         There was not a fully operating kitchen at the premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item LCSC/10/21-22