Agenda item

The legal representative made an initial request for additional time to present their application.  The chair advised that all parties would have the allocated 15 minutes to make their presentations.

 

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

 

The applicant and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant and their legal representatives.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.20pm until 1.30pm for the applicant to discuss the issue of capacity with their legal representative.

 

It was noted that the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant prior to the meeting.

 

The local residents objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee. Two local residents were represented by ward councillors.  Members had questions for the local residents and the ward councillors.

 

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.58pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 3.23pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Electric Shuffle Ltd for a premises licence to be granted under Section.17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Electric Shuffle, Unit Les – 02 London Bridge Station (10 Bermondsey Street), London SE1 2ERbe granted as follows:

 

Indoor sports:

Sunday to Thursday from 11:00 to 23:00

Friday and Saturday from 11:00 to 00:00

 

Recorded music (indoors):

Friday and Saturday from 23:00 to 00:00

 

Late night refreshment (indoors):

Friday and Saturday from 23:00 to 00:00

 

Supply of alcohol (on the premises):

Sunday to Thursday from 11:00 to 22:45

Friday and Saturday from 11:00 to 23:45

 

Operating hours:

Sunday to Thursday from 11:00 to 23:00

Friday and Saturday from 11:00 to 00:00

 

Non standard timings:

 

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday preceding a Bank Holiday.

 

1.  Conditions

 

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the proposed conditions within the application form, the conditions agreed with the licensing authority (as responsible authority) and the environmental protection team during the conciliation process and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

 

1.  That there will be a maximum capacity for patrons of 300. This may be increased to 350 patrons on 12 occasions per year.  A record of the same shall be kept on the premises.

 

2.  That the premises would arrange meetings with the local residents at least once every six months.

 

2.  Reasons

 

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the applicant who advised that the premises would be a railway arch under London Bridge Station. Planning permission had already been recommended by planning officers to permit this venue to operate as a leisure-led facility. They advised that if the licence was granted, the premises would be a positive and exceptional addition to the major London Bridge redevelopment and regeneration project.

 

The representative for the application acknowledged that the premises was located in a cumulative impact area with a presumption to refuse the application but added that the premises would offer a unique experience to all those that lived, worked and visited the borough.  They informed the sub-committee that the applicant had an exemplary professional record with all of their other licensed premises.  Furthermore, significant revisions had been made to the application, including reduced policy hours and a suite of robust conditions that would benefit the locality.

 

They advised the sub-committee that the responsible authorities’ were satisfied with the amended application and had now withdrawn their objections. They further added that expert evidence from two former police officers independently conclude that the premises was unlikely to have a negative impact on the licensing objectives and expert acoustic evidence confirmed noise mitigation measures would be contained within the premises and the high-levels of existing background noise in the locality would mask any potential noise impact from arriving and departing patrons. The applicant also would employ street marshalls to assist in the safe dispersal of patrons.  The applicant also would employ two street marshalls to assist in the safe dispersal of patrons and at weekend there would be “floating” street marshalls the number of which would be deployed following a risk assessment.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted that the responsible authorities, namely the environmental protection team and licensing (as a responsible authority) had conciliated with the applicant.  They also noted that the police had not made a representation in respect of the application.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from local residents who had submitted representations as other persons.  Party 39 (who represented 11 other persons) stated that a capacity of 300 would have a serious and negative impact.  There would be an increase in queues and people congregating outside the premises together with an increase in smokers from the patrons. They informed the sub-committee that, in their opinion, the street marshalls proposed by the applicant had no power and therefore had no proper enforcement powers. Concerning transport, the premises was located on a red route so Uber (and other similar operations) would be unable to stop outside the premises and there was also no evidence that public transport would be used. It was the view of party 39 that the premises would operate as a nightclub.

 

Party 11 was represented by the ward councillor who advised that whilst she did not object to the applicant’s proposed activities, there should be less emphasis on drinking alcohol as alcohol would encourage anti-social behaviour. They advised the sub-committee that residents frequently experience intoxicated individuals, people loitering around, empty drinks cans, vomit, urination and defecation on the streets.  They said that It was their constituents’ right when then they closed the front door to their property that they are not disturbed by the outside world. Residents were unable to soundproof their homes any further and they should not have to tolerate further noise from licensed premises.

 

Party 12 was represented by another ward councillor who largely echoed his fellow ward councillor (for party 11). They advised that the area did not need an activity led licensed premises.

 

Party 2 stated that there were already two late night venues in the area and both already affect their family’s sleep. The late night premises were already blight on the entire neighbourhood. They said that they felt that street marshalls had no enforcement powers in relation to the later night revellers.

 

Party 29 stated that dispersal was a big issue and that people often disperse to small dark areas of private property where street marshalls were not permitted to enter.

 

The licensing sub-committee took into account the 36 other representations from local residents opposing the application most of whom were not present (Regulation 20(3) The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005).

 

The licensing sub-committee concluded that the premises was within the Borough and Bankside cumulative impact area and in accordance with paragraph 130 of the Southwark statement of licensing policy (2019 – 2021) there was a rebuttable presumption that this application will be refused or subject to certain limitations. Nevertheless, the licensing sub-committee was satisfied that granting this application will not impact further on the relevant licensing objectives in accordance with the approach set out between paragraphs 150 – 155 of the statement of licensing policy together with the considerable suite of conditions detailed in the operating schedule of the application and the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities to avoid any further impact on the relevant licensing objectives.  Therefore an exception could be made to policy.

 

In the view of the licensing sub-committee these matters were sufficient to both rebut the presumption contained in paragraph 130 of the Southwark statement of licensing policy (2019 – 2021) and to justify the grant of this premises licence. 

 

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.

 

The sub-committee noted that, during questioning, the applicant said that they would avoid using single use plastics where possible, for example they would be using paper straws rather than plastic ones. Similarly, the applicant would actively discourage customers driving to the premises and encourage the use of public transport.  While the sub-committee welcomes these commitments, it did not form part of the decision to grant a licence. 

 

3.  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.