Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the legal representative and the management of the premises. Members had questions for the legal representative and the management of the premises.

The environmental protection officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the environmental protection officer.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the local residents objecting to the application. Members had questions for the local residents.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 11.30am.

The meeting resumed at 11.47am and the chair read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by City Cruises Plc, for a variation of a premises licence, granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asCity Cruises Plc is granted as follows:

1)  To extend the permitted hours for the exhibition of films to 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

2)  To add the exhibitions of films outdoors subject to the condition that audio outdoors will be via headphones only.

3)  To extend the opening house to 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

Conditions

1)  That the film screen be inflated not before the first passenger pick up at or before the last passenger drop off.

2)  That staff will leave the premises in silence and signage will be erected reminding staff of the same.

Reasons

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the applicant who advised that a premises licence had been granted in 2016 and since that time, no complaints has been received regarding the operation of the premises. The company had 13 licensed vessels in London and no enforcement action had been taken in respect of any of them. A number of temporary event notices (TENs) had taken place, which neither the police of environmental protection Team had served counter notices. It was accepted that on 16 June 2017 no TEN was in place due to an administrative oversight. The variation application was in respect of films only and not in respect of alcohol and offered two conditions as detailed in section 2 of this notice of decision.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the council’s environmental protection team (EPT) who submitted a representation, though made it clear that they were not making a formal objection, but provided information in relation to the concerns raised by local residents.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from four local residents, who objected to the application due to light pollution, health and sleep deprivation, impact of artificial light on wildlife the intensification of operations leading to additional deliveries and rubbish, noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. Whilst the sub-committee was sympathetic to the local residents, the complaints largely concerned the way in which the business was being operated, rather than, specifically objecting to the variation application relevant to the City Alpha.  Furthermore, much of the residents concerns related to planning legislation, which were not considerations for a licensing sub-committee.

The licensing sub-committee noted the representations from another seven local residents.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and were of the opinion that the cinema on the City Alpha would be a silent cinema so there would be no noise from coming from the cinema itself and the patrons on the deck would be occupied in watching the screenings so less likely to add significant noise, or become intoxicated. Furthermore, the effect of the variation on the servicing and waste collection was considered unlikely to be significant in terms of nuisance noise. The application sought an additional hour to its current operation and this remained within the recommended hours detailed in Southwark’s statement of licensing policy. The sub-committee took the view that there is a risk of nuisance from almost any licensing application, but in this case the licensing sub-committee was of the view that the level of risk did not justify a refusal of the application.

The level of concern raised by the local residents did concern the members of the sub-committee and whilst the local residents have a right to submit a review application of the applicant’s premises licence, the issues raised were predominantly planning matters and it would be in the residents’ interest to refer these to the planning enforcement team.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

The applicant may appeal against any decision:

a)  To impose conditions on the licence

b)  To exclude a licensable activity or refuse to specify a person as premises supervisor.

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

a)  The  licence ought not to be been granted; or

b)  That on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions to the licence, or ought to have modified them in a different way

may appeal against the decision.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ Court for the area in which the premises are situated. Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.