Agenda item

The meeting started at 10.19am as there were public transport issues overnight and also some time had elapsed to allow discussions to take place, prior to the meeting, between the applicant and responsible authorities.

The chair explained that following discussions prior to the meeting it was unnecessary to go through the full standard introduction that usually commences a licensing sub-committee.

The licensing officer explained that there had originally been four representations from responsible authorities with regard to the application. Two of those had been withdrawn before the day of the meeting and the other two had been conciliated on the day of the meeting prior to it starting.

The trading standards officer advised that they had now withdrawn their representation. Members had no questions for the trading standards officer.

The Metropolitan Police Service’s representative advised that they had now withdrawn their representation. Members had no questions for the police representative.

The applicant and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee. They confirmed that they were satisfied with the agreements with trading standards and the police.

The members of the sub-committee agreed that they were satisfied with the application as conciliated.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Bhaskaran Sivakumar for Bridge Walk Food and Wine for a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as3 London Bridge Walk London SE1 2SX 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 and additional conditions agreed between Public Health, Licensing Authority, Metropolitan Police and trading standards authority during the conciliation process.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee were advised that both Public Health and the Licensing Authority had agreed conditions with the applicant and in view of these conditions had withdrawn their representations.

Before the licensing sub-committee commenced both the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards confirmed that they had also agreed further conditions with the applicant and as a result of these conditions being agreed they confirmed that their representations would be withdrawn.

In view of this the licensing sub-committee agreed that the licence could be granted.

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 have 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 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 meeting ended at 10.26am.