Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report. It was noted that the police and the environmental protection team had conciliated with the applicant.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

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

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

Both parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 11.34am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 12.15 pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for a premises licence in respect of the premises known as 10 Union Street, 10-18 Union Street, London SE1 1SZ be granted pursuant to section 18(4)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 as follows:

Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, the conditions set out in the amended operating schedule and the following additional condition regarding the dispersal policy requested by the licensing authority and agreed by the sub-committee:

1)  That the written dispersal policy shall be kept at the premises with the licence and made available for inspection by authorised council officers or the police. All relevant staff shall be trained in the implementation of the dispersal policy.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

This was an application by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists pursuant to section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 for a premises licence in respect of the premises known as 10 Union Street, 10-18 Union Street, London SE1 1SZ.

Written representations in respect of the application had been received from the Metropolitan Police Service and the environmental protection team as responsible authorities, however these were withdrawn prior to the hearing.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant’s representative, who emphasised that the applicant is a reputable charitable organization which has been operating similar licensed premises in Westminster for a number of years without any problems arising. He pointed out that the premises are to be used primarily for educational purposes and events, not as a bar or restaurant. Although the maximum capacity referred to in the application was over 968, in practice numbers would be well below this. At the existing premises in Westminster, the greatest number on any one occasion was around 400, though most college dinners numbered between 100 and 200.

As to the council’s cumulative impact policy, he argued firstly that it did not apply because the premises did not fall within the class of premises caught by paragraph 143 of the policy. Secondly, he argued that even if the policy did apply, the premises should be exempted by virtue of paragraph 153 of the policy, in that they were not ‘alcohol led’, constituted an existing business operation being relocated while maintaining the same style of operation and a suite of conditions was proposed that would ensure that the premises operated in an appropriate manner. As to the licensing hours set out in paragraph 168 of the policy, it was not appropriate to impose hours that would apply to pubs, wine bars and other drinking establishments. Instead, the hours applicable to event spaces were more suitable for these premises. The police had rightly said in their representation that the premises were akin to a members’ club and the hours applied for were therefore suitable.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative of the licensing authority, who indicated that the applicant had addressed many of the issues and questions raised in her written representations. However, the key issue was licensing hours. The premises were not analogous to a members’ club – this was not an application for a club premises certificate and different considerations applied. Nor was it appropriate to exempt the premises on a ‘relocation’ basis under paragraph 153 of the policy. Paragraph 154 made it clear that the fact that an applicant operates a similar style of business elsewhere (such as

within another local authority area) without complaint is not relevant to the impact of new premises. The hours applicable to pubs, wine bars and drinking establishments were more appropriate in this case. She ultimately proposed that if the licence was to be granted the terminal hours for licensable activities should be restricted to 23.30 from Sunday to Thursday and 01.00 on Friday and Saturday. She would also want an additional condition relating to the dispersal of patrons from the premises. There was no objection to this condition from the applicant.

The licensing sub-committee considered that the cumulative impact policy did apply to these premises, but also considered that it would be justified in departing from the policy in the individual circumstances of the case and was satisfied that the grant of the application would not impact further on the relevant licensing objectives.

The licensing sub-committee took account of the unique nature of the applicant and its activities, and the comprehensive suite of conditions proposed. Further, given that 90% of the applicant’s members are women, the licensing sub-committee considered the application to be an exceptional one having regard to the Equalities Act 2010. The licensing sub-committee also noted that the applicant undertook to minimise the use of single-use plastics in its operations.

The sub-committee therefore decided to grant the premises licence pursuant to section 18(4)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 and considered it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to impose the conditions set out above.

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 desires to contend that:

a)  The licence ought not to have been granted; or

b)  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.