Agenda item

The licensing officer addressed the sub-committee. They advised that the applicant had conciliated with the responsible authorities.

The chair allowed the other person objecting to speak before the applicant.  They advise that they no longer had any issues with the application.

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

Neither party had anything to add during summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 12.30pm for the members to consider their decision.

The meeting resumed at 12.37pm and the chair read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Franz Schinagl for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as the Speckmobile, 76 Druid Street,  London SE1 2HH 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, the conciliated conditions agreed with the responsible authorities and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

1.  That there be a maximum capacity of 80 people.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who advised that the premises was currently used as a production kitchen and storage space for catering services with a goods receiving area in the front and that it is intended to sell food and alcohol as part of the Maltby Street and Druid Street Market. The applicant also stated that he intended to install tables and chairs outside the premises and serve food and alcohol on Druid Street.  In addition to this they intend to wholesale alcohol for private and corporate clients.  The applicant also agreed to sign up to the Women’s Safety Charter.

The licensing sub-committee heard from a representative to 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 been conciliated.

The licensing sub-committee noted the objections from the five 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.

The applicant stated that he intended to use the outside area to serve food and alcohol, unfortunately, the outside area was not included on the plan of the premises.  This will mean that the applicant will only be able to serve food in the outside area until a variation application is submitted and determined in respect of alcohol. Should such an application be submitted this licensing sub-committee recommends that the outside area be restricted to 30 patrons in a roped off area between the hours of 11:00-18:00.  The applicant is also reminded of the need to obtain a highways licence for this 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:

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.