Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report. Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

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

The local residents objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the local residents.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 3.36pm for the members to consider their decision.

The meeting resumed at 4.01pm and the chair advised all parties of the sub-committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application by The Pie Cart Limited for a premises licence issued under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as The Pie Cart, Unit 19, Old Jamaica Business Estate,  24 Old Jamaica Road, London SE16 4AW is granted as follows:

Hours

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 the Metropolitan Police Service, environmental protection team and licensing as a responsible authority during the conciliation process and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

1.  That patrons shall be directed to exit the area via the gate furthest from Eyot House after 20:00.

2.  That the doors to the premises shall be closed after 22:00 except for ingress and egress.

3.  That the total capacity of the premises shall be 60.

4.  That a telephone number be made available to residents to contact the premises regarding any issues or complaints.

5.  That outside furniture shall be lifted, not dragged, when brought inside.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub committee heard from the licensing officer who explained that 7 representations had been received from local residents and that party 4 had permission to represent parties 2,3,5. He also distributed further documents to the committee including supporting evidence from party 4, the agreed conditions with responsible authorities and an area map and the dispersal policy. All responsible authorities had been conciliated.

The sub committee then heard from the applicant. The applicant stated that they had been operating as a bakery for three years, as a café for one year and now wished to extend their offering to have drinks offering. They wanted the flexibility to host events such as conferences, films and meetings. It was noted that the police had made little comment on the application apart from confirmation of conditions, that they had reduced their hours by half an hour in line with other similar premises in the area. The main issue had been dispersal issues which had now been conciliated. The responsible authority “experts” had conciliated and were now happy with the application.

The premises was outside the cumulative policy zone and whilst the area was classified as residential, the actual premises was set back from the road and part of an industrial estate and not near a street. Measures had been put in place regarding off sales to ensure that they were sold in sealed containers and so the risk of litter from cups being discarded was minimal. The premises was also next to a train line going into one of the busiest stations in the country and so the area could not be deemed a quiet area; the applicant did not accept that noise from outside the premises would or could harm local residents. There would be no speakers outside of the premises and only smokers would be allowed outside after 10pm. He also stated that some representations from local residents had been based on misinformation for example, the premises would be a 24/7 bar. Anti-social behaviour and disorder had not been mentioned by the police and the applicant had paid due care and attention to meeting the concerns of local residents such as via the conditions and dispersal policy.

The licensing sub-committee questioned the applicant. They were concerned that there was only one toilet. The applicant explained that he occasionally brought in a hired toilet for events he knew would be larger but was not proposing building a secondary toilet. He also stated that one toilet had sufficed so far for the temporary events that had been held. The applicant was asked of the proposed business model and whether it would be a food led establishment or alcohol lead. To this, the applicant explained that they wanted the flexibility to offer alcohol with food for events, or just have drink led events. They wanted to make the most use of the space available, but expected business would be 70% food and 30% alcohol. At present the premises operated hours until approximately 17:00 hours. The applicant was asked if the doors could be closed to minimise any noise later in the evening the applicant stated that the premises may become stuffy.

The sub-committee heard from the objectors. Objector 4 spoke on behalf of objector 1 who was also present. The objector stated that he had provided photographs to show the committee how close the premises was to his property and possible areas of anti-social behaviour. They also highlighted the council’s core value of treating members of the public as if they were a member of their own family and submitted that granting the application would not be doing so. Objector 4 also drew the committee’s attention to paragraph 37 to promote the licensing objectives and 39 to protect the public, submitting that if the premises licence application was granted, the committee would have failed in this duty. The objector also stated that they lived on the seventh floor and noise often echoed up from the premises during previous temporary event notices. Currently, residents could enjoy peace and quiet in the evenings and could currently open their windows, but when the TEN was operating, the windows had to be closed due to noise which was not enjoyable in the extremely hot weather.

The objector then drew the committee’s attention to section 5, paragraph 111 of Southwark’s licensing policy and stated that the applicant had made no attempt to research the area of deal with the communities concerns as they had made no attempt to deal with the impact on local residents.

The committee asked if there had been issues with the premises currently, which the objectors confirmed there had not, apart from the TENs when music was played externally. This had now been addressed in the conciliated conditions. The applicant also drew the committee’s attention to the fact that music would be in control of the management, and the applicant owned only small non-commercial speakers to play background music inside.   Concerning dispersal from the premises, the agreed that patrons would be asked to leave and directed to the gate furthest from local residents.

The committee was still concerned with the number of toilets. The applicant tried to reassure the committee that so far for 95% of event, one toilet had been adequate and a second toilet had been brought in if deemed necessary. The sub-committee were also concerned about the capacity and the effect this could have on noise and toilet use. The committee therefore recommended that the applicant continued to risk assess the need for additional toilets for events as necessary.

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.