Agenda item

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

The applicant and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the applicant and their representative.

The meeting went into closed session at 10.45am.

The meeting resumed at 10.52am and the chair advised the applicant of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application by Paul Graham for a variation of the premises licence issued under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Leadbelly’s, Unit C, Montreal House, Surrey Quays Road, London SE16 7AQis granted as follows:

·  To allow for the following non standard timing in regards to the provision of late night refreshment:

o  That the terminal hour for late night refreshment on New year’s Eve shall be extended until 05:00 hours on New Year’s Day.

·  To allow for the following non standard timing in regards to the provision licensable activities:

o  That on New Year’s Eve licensable activities shall be permitted from the end of permitted hours until the start of permitted hours on New Years Day.

·  To allow for the following non standard timing in regards to the opening hours of the premises:

o  That on New Years Eve the premises shall be permitted to remain open from closing time until 09:00 on New Years Day.

Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, any conditions derived from the operating schedule in Section M of the application for and conditions agreed to between the applicant and responsible authorities.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the applicant who advised that the premises had conciliated with the responsible authorities and that the only two representations outstanding were from the local ward councillors.  The applicant objected to the two representations, stating that both councillors had submitted representations in March 2017 and since that date, the variation application had been withdrawn and simply referring to the March objection suggested that neither of the councillors had considered the new variation application. The licensing sub-committee noted the applicant’s complaint, but disagreed that it was relevant; the representation had been accepted by the licensing authority and any complaint concerning the validity of the representation should have been made when the representation was received to the licensing officer. 

The representative for the applicant stated that the variation for the applicant was customer led.  The representations from responsible authorities had conciliated and there had been no objections from local residents who lived either above or nearby the premises. The premises had been trading for eight months and no complaints had been received.  The premises was working with the local community by leafleting invitations for events and also the designated premises supervisor’s contact details were available should a resident have any concerns.

The only representations outstanding were from the two local ward councillors who were not in attendance. The representations were identical and stated that the premises were underneath a residential building and the proposed extension of operating hours would increase the possibility of noise nuisance and disturbance and are not suitable for a predominantly residential area.

The licensing sub-committee noted that the Metropolitan Police Service and environmental protection team has conciliated with the applicant.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it.  The variation application was in line with Southwark’s statement of licensing policy and the responsible authorities felt there were sufficient control measures to promote the licensing objectives. The committee agreed to grant the application but recommended that the premises ensured a continued good relationship with the local residents and updated their dispersal policy so that is in line with the licence re the outside area.

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 to modify the conditions of the licence; and

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

a)  That variation ought not to have been made; or

b)  That, when varying the licence, the licensing authority ought not to have modified the conditions of 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.