Agenda and draft minutes


Contact: Governance Service Email: 

Note: Virtual Meeting - A live audio stream will be available from this page on the day of the meeting. 

No. Item


Appointment of Chairman


    RESOLVED that Councillor Barry Rawlings be appointed Chairman for this Licensing Sub-Committee meeting.




Absence of Members (If any)




Declaration of Members' Disclosable Pecuniary interests and Non Pecuniary interests (If any)




Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing Procedure pdf icon PDF 230 KB


    The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed for the meeting.


Report of Trading Standards & Licensing Manager - Taste of Venezuela, 8 Nethercourt Avenue London N3 1PT pdf icon PDF 3 MB


    The sub-committee considered an application for a New Premises Licence for Taste of Venezuela, 8 Nethercourt Avenue, London, N3 1PT (“the Premises”).


Motion to exclude the Press and Public


    RESOLVED that the parties be excluded from the meeting, together with the press and public, in accordance with Regulation 14(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings and Regulations 2005).

    Prior to exclusion, parties were notified that the decision of the Sub-Committee would be announced within 5 working days.



Deliberation by the Sub-Committee in Private Session


    The Sub-Committee deliberated in private session, accompanied by the Officer from HB Public Law and the Governance Officer.


Re-admission of the Press and Public: Announcement of the decision of the Sub-Committee


    This is an application for a licence made under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in relation to Taste of Venezuela, 8 Nethercourt Avenue, London, N3 1PT (“the Premises”). 


    The application is for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises from Monday to Sunday 10:00 hours to 18:00 hours.


    Given the current COVID 19 pandemic, the licensing Sub-Committee was held by way of a virtual meeting using Microsoft Teams. Submissions were made by Mr Renzo Cafagna of Taste of Venzuela and South America Ltd, the Applicant company; Mr Zekiel Cudjoe for the Licensing Authority; and, Mr and Mrs Lewis who had made representations in opposition to the granting of the licence.


    Representations were received from three other members of the Public. They did not attend the hearing. No representations were received from the Police due to the Applicant having agreed a number of conditions with them prior to the hearing. 


    Mr Cafagna submitted that all alcoholic products would be sold online, there would be no collections in person from the Premises and that the address of the Premises would not be disclosed. He explained that he was already making and selling food, but that this was done from a commercial kitchen in Central London and not in the Borough. Only a limited number of items were stored at the Premises. These were ingredients which were collected for delivery; customers did not attend to collect them in person.


    In answer to questions, Mr Cafagna confirmed that his landlord was aware of the business he was running and was amenable to it. Mr Cafagna said his tenancy of the Premises would continue until August 2021, but was hopeful that it would be extended beyond this. He said he had been making some improvements to the Premises in the expectation that he would be able to stay for longer. Mr Cafagna also confirmed that he did not use the rear access to the Premises and had no intention of using it.


    Mr Cafagna gave a slightly confusing answer about whether or not the Applicant company was live or dormant. He appeared to say that the company was live but also that he intended for the company to become live if the licence was granted.


    Mr Cafagna explained that he was not expecting there to be more than 10 collections of alcohol from the Premises per week, and that he thought that there would not likely be more than 3 to 5. He said he had a driveway and that delivery drivers used that.


    The Sub-Committee heard from Mr and Mrs Lewis. They explained that the rear access to the Premises was shared and was a right of way only. The right of way was only for access to gardens and garages. As the Premises did not have a garage, they said Mr Cafagna should not be using it.


    Mr and Mrs Lewis also explained that the considered Mr Cafagna’s use of the Premises to be illegal. Mr Lewis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.


Any other Item(s) the Chairman decides are urgent