Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  They advised that the responsible authorities had now conciliated with the applicant.  One local resident had also withdrawn their objection.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

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

The applicant was given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 10.44am for the members to consider their decision.

The meeting resumed at 10.48am.  The chair did not read out the decision of the sub-committee as nobody was present.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Niall Devlin and Michael Peters to vary a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asThe Rose, 123 Snowsfields, London SE1 3ST be 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 and the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities as a result of conciliation.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who advised that the applicant had reduced the hours applied for and had also agreed to the addition of further conditions. As a result all responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant. 

The licensing officer also advised that one of the other person’s representations had also been withdrawn.

The applicant advised that he had operated the premises responsibly without any issues for the previous four years.

The applicant advised that they employ well trained staff to ensure that the premises operated responsibly and that they took their role seriously.

The applicant confirmed that they had removed the application fo0r regulated entertainment and also reduced the hours originally applied for, which were now aligned with the recommended hours within Southwark’s statement of Licensing policy.

In addition the applicant had also agreed to the addition of several further conditions.

The licensing sub committee noted the three remaining written representations which had been received from other persons. The representations expressed concerns for the extended hours being granted within a cumulative impact area.

The licensing sub committee noted that whilst the other persons did not attend the hearing, the sub committee took into account the written representations.  It noted that more weight could have been attached had a representative attended the sub-committee but nonetheless the representation carried weight.

The sub committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and were satisfied that the reduced hours, removal of regulated entertainment and additional conditions would assist in minimising any potential impact in the cumulative impact area.

The sub committee considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate in promoting the licensing objectives.

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.