Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  They advised that the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant.  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 legal representative.

Two other persons from a neighbouring licensed premises, objecting to the application, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the other persons.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 1.20pm for the members to consider their decision.

The meeting resumed at 1.28pm and the legal officer read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Tonkotsu Limited for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Tonkotsu, 133 Rye Lane, Peckham, London SE15 4ST  is granted as follows:

Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the operation schedule highlighted in Section M of the application form, the conditions agreed with responsible authorities during the conciliation process.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who informed the sub-committee that the premises would be a Japanese ramen restaurant with an ancillary bar for the use of customers to dine only. They advised that the premises was to be part of a successful group of similar restaurants run by the applicant. The applicant advised the licensing sub-committee that contrary to the representations from the other persons, they did not believe that the operation would undermine any of the licensing objectives. Together with their landlord, they had an open dialogue with neighbouring operators and had taken all active measures to minimise the impact of the premises on the objectors.

The applicant advised that there was a legal right to enter the building 133 Rye Lane from the public highway (being Rye Lane), in addition to a legal right to pass over the land to the side and rear of the building at all times

Further, the landlord had re-designed the primary entrance to the building on Rye Lane by setting it back by 1.4 metres which would ensure the premises (and the other users of the building) did not unduly impact on the public footpath; it would also minimise the impact on the CLF’s late-night operation.

The licensing sub-committee heard from two other persons from a neighbouring licensed premises who opposed the application. They specifically opposed the proposed late night opening hours on Fridays and Saturdays between 23:00 and 01:00, stating that it would be  catastrophic for their businesses. Whilst they did not have an issue with the business per se, the operation of the premises, and their use of the side entrance in the alley off Rye Lane, was at saturation level on Fridays and Saturdays and the additional footfall, would put the health and safety of both their patrons and those of the applicant’s at risk.  It was suggested that the application should be granted but with a reduced terminal hour on Fridays and Saturdays of 23:00, which could be varied to a later time once the premises proved that their operation did not have a negative impact to the local area.

The licensing sub-committee noted the representation from a third other person (party 2) who was not in attendance at the meeting.

The licensing sub-committee noted the conciliated representations from the Metropolitan Police Service and licensing as a responsible authority.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and noted that whilst the local area was within a cumulative impact zone, this did not apply to restaurants.  Therefore there was no presumption to refuse the application. There was no definitive evidence that the premises would have a negative impact on the health and safety of the patrons for other licensed premises in the area, nor did health and safety as a responsible authority submit a representation to the application.  In those circumstances, there was no reason to refuse the application or reduce its operation in anyway.

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.

The licensing sub-committee adjourned at 1.30pm and reconvened at 2.30pm.