Agenda item

Licensing Act 2003: Tola, 56 Peckham High Street, London SE15 5DP

Minutes:

The licensing officer presented their report and informed members that all representations except that of the licensing authority had been withdrawn. Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

 

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

 

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority addressed the sub-committee. Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

 

All the parties were given five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.55 for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.05 and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Treadgold Limited to vary the premises licence under s.34 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Tola, 56 Peckham High Street, London SE15 5DP be granted as follows:

 

Conditions

 

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, any conditions derived from the operating schedule in Section M of the application form, conditions conciliated with the responsible authorities during conciliation.

 

Reasons

 

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who advised that the current premises licence was transferred to them in November 2017 when the premises had been operating as a snooker hall. The premises now was a bar and music venue providing a late night space for the local community: Wednesdays were generally a live night, Thursdays they had had a radio station residency, involving local DJs and weekends  there were promoter nights.  During the day it was a café/workspace.  Having operated for 18 months, it was felt that the licence did not meet the needs of the business and that their application was to bring the licence in line with their needs and remove redundant conditions.

 

The applicant recognised that the premises was situated the Peckham cumulative impact policy area (CIP), but the application would not have a detrimental effect on the crime and disorder or public nuisance in the area: the current licence had robust conditions congruent with a late operating licence which the licensing authority had already deemed suitable; the increase in hours sought would have a net effect of an increase opening (of the premises) by three hours spread over Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday and would allow for 30 minutes drinking up time on each those days; the premises had operated for 18 months the premises had proven to be responsible operators and had not added to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the Peckham CIP area. Numerous Temporary Events Notices had been issued without objection and operated until 06:00 hours without complaint.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for licensing as a responsible authority who advised that the premises was located in the Peckham cumulative impact policy area. Under s.130 of the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, there is a rebuttable presumption and a variation likely to add to the existing cumulative impact of licensed premises in the area will normally be refused or subject to certain limitations. It was for the applicant to demonstrate that the operation of the premises would not contribute to the negative cumulative impact of licensed premises in the locality and/or be to the detriment of any of the licensing objectives. Because the applicant sought hours that fell outside those recommended in the Statement of Licensing Policy, it was felt that it was a matter for the members of the sub-committee to determine the application.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted that the representations from the Metropolitan Police Service, Trading Standards, Health and Safety and Public Health had all be conciliated with the applicant and had subsequently been withdrawn.

 

The licensing sub-committee also noted the 14 representations in support of the application.

 

The licensing sub-committee recognised that the premises is located in the Peckham CIP and the application in terms of hours falls outside those set out in the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and therefore, the presumption is to refuse the application.  Having heard from the applicant and the conciliation with the responsible authorities, the sub-committee were reminded of paragraph 165 of the Statement of Licensing Policy and believe that that this is a case where it is justified to deviate from the policy. The applicant sufficiently demonstrated that that detailed measures agreed with the responsible authorities would mitigate against crime, disorder and public nuisance.

 

In the course of discussions with the applicant, they agreed that they would amend their website recommending that arrival/departure to/from the premises should be by foot or public transport and removal of all single use plastic material.

 

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.

 

 

Following this, the meeting adjourned for a comfort break from 11.07 until 11.25.

Supporting documents: