Agenda item

This meeting resumed at 11.05am, with the chair outlining which information had already been circulated and which speakers  would be speaking. As the other interested parties had brought along photos which had not previously been circulated, the meeting adjourned from 11.20am to 11.25am to give all parties an opportunity to view and agree these. 

The chair reminded the meeting that planning issues were outside of the purview of this sub-committee and therefore should not be discussed. 

The licensing officer presented their report and drew members’ attention to the fact that a response from the applicant to the points raised by the other parties had been circulated. Furthermore, Councillor Hamish McCallum was going to speak on behalf of party 1.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

The legal representative for the applicant and one of the premises managers made representations to the sub-committee. Members asked questions of the representatives of the applicant.

Councillor Hamish McCallum spoke on behalf of one local resident, as did six other  local residents, objecting to the application. Members had questions for the local residents and Councillor McCallum.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 1.03pm for the members to consider their decision.

The meeting resumed at 1.50pm and the chair advised all parties of the sub-committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Chapeau Tower Bridge Limited for a premises licence to be granted under s.17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Chapeau Tower Bridge, 37 Shad Thames, London SE1 2NJ 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 and trading standards during the conciliation process and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

a)  That the outside area will be cleared of furniture 30-minutes after the closing of the premises.

b)  In the event of a temporary event notice taking place with a terminal hour beyond 21:00 hours, the outside area will be vacated by 22:00 hours and cleared of furniture by 22:30 hours.  Doors will remain closed with the exception of ingress and egress after 22:00 hours.

c)  That the delivery management plan conciliated condition with the environment protection team is amended to include “that there will be no bottling up between 20:00 and 08:00 hours.”

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the applicant who advised that they had an existing premises licence at The Watch House, 31 Shad Thames which operated primarily as a sandwich and coffee shop on Monday to Fridays between 08:00 and 19:00 hours, and on Saturday and Sunday between 08:00 and 19:00 hours.  Due to the success of the operation they intended to move five doors up to 37 Shad Thames, being a larger premises with 2,200sqft space with 70 seats internally and 35 seats externally.  The style of operation namely, a sandwich and coffee shop would remain the same.  The representative also advised that occasional evening events had taken place at The Watch House at 31 Shad Thames (approximately five since the opening of the premises in September 2016), which they wished to continue.

The Licensing Sub-Committee noted  that all of the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant and a suite of conditions had been agreed.  Copies of the agreed conditions had been provided to the local residents (“other persons”) who had objected to the application.

The chair of the licensing sub-committee advised the other persons that all of the members of the sub-committee had read the papers in advance of the meeting and noted that much of the residents concerns related to planning issues.  It was explained that the licensing and planning processes were two very separate regulatory regimes and planning issues could not be taken into consideration when determining the premises licence application.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the local ward councillor representing party 1, who reminded the sub-committee that the full licensing committee had recently re-evaluated the status of Shad Thames within Southwark’s Statement of Licensing Policy (6 November 2017) when it was agreed that whilst the premises was located in the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge strategic cultural area, it was also largely a residential area and which attracts a earlier closing time for all licenced premises.  The local ward councillor advised that the business would be relocated  five doors from its current site, but the size and scale of the new premises operation at number 37 would make a significant change, it would be approximately three times larger it was currently with outside seating also.  Residents lived directly above the premises at number 37 and would be disturbed by noise nuisance.

Additional concerns were raised by other local residents.  Party 39 raised concern about smokers by the entrance of the Eagle Wharf and those using the outside area of the premises.  Party 18 referred to the Tower Bridge Piazza being a private square with many residents being families and the elderly; the proposed outside seating area would be akin to allowing customers to sit in the resident’s front garden and due to the echoing effect, increase public nuisance. Party 8 similarly raised concern of noise nuisance as did party 42 and party 26.

Through the course of discussion with both the applicant’s representatives, and the local residents, the applicant made a number of concessions. The core hours of the premises would be 07:00 to 19:00 and a licence for post-19:00 hours would only be required very occasionally.  The applicant therefore agreed to reduce the hours sought and agreed anything beyond these hours could be covered by temporary event notices. The applicant also agreed to remove the sale of alcohol by way of off-sales.  It was explained to the residents that the applicant had a licence with the freeholder of the development concerning the use of the outside area.  Failing to licence the outside area, would not prohibit the applicant from serving food in the outside area.

The  premises is not located in a cumulative impact policy area, so there was no automatic presumption that new premises are likely to add to a cumulative impact so should be refused. The hours of operation are also, well within policy hours.  A suite of conditions has been agreed with the responsible authorities, including the environmental protection team who as professional experts would not conciliate, if there were on-going noise issues. Under the licensing regime, there is no justifiable reason not to grant this application.  The licensing sub-committee does made one final recommendation that the prior to the new premises at number 37 opens, the premises licence for the Watch House be surrendered, which was accepted by the applicant.

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.