Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  The licensing officer advised that the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant.  The legal officer had a question for the licensing officer.

The applicant addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant. 

The other person objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the other persons.

Both parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 11.52am for the members to consider their decision.

The meeting resumed at 12.07pm and the chair read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Simon Charles Cotton for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as the Barrel Project, 80 Druid Street,  London SE1 2HQ 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 conciliated conditions agreed with the responsible authorities and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

1.  That the plans to premises be amended to reflect the changes of the Ropewalk exit as a fire exit only. 

2.  That the dispersal policy be amended to read that no customers should be allowed to take drinks onto Druid Street or Ropewalk other than to take away and they must be in a sealed container.

Reasons

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who advised that the premises was located in a railway arch and it was intended to use the space as a half barrel ageing facility for beer and the bar/shop selling specialist beer and other alcoholic drinks theatre which would be consumed on the premises. The applicant had another premise in a neighbouring borough; he had also run the Peckham Beer Festival over the summer 2017 in Southwark and no complaints had been received in respect of either operation.  Whilst there would be no kitchen on the premises to cook food, the applicant anticipated utilising the services of other local eateries for events. The applicant also agreed to sign up to the Women’s Safety Charter.

The licensing sub-committee heard from a representative from a local business that had submitted a representation and stated that whilst he supported the premises, his only concern was the premises had no right of use of Ropewalk which was jointly owned by his company and two other companies.  This concern had been discussed with the applicant and it was agreed that the premises would not use Ropewalk.

The licensing sub-committee noted the objections from all of the responsible authorities had conciliated.

The licensing sub-committee noted the objections from the 10 other persons who were not present, concerning the number of families living opposite the premises and the likelihood of disturbance. Local residents already suffered noise from existing premises as well as anti-social behaviour and believe an additional licensed premises would make an make the situation intolerable.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and noted that the premises had been in operation for a number of years and no complaints had been made in respect of it.  In those circumstances, the sub-committee were of the view that any impact the premises may have on the local residents would be minimal and could not justify not granting the applicant a licence.

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.