Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report. The licensing officer advised that they had received apologies from the planning enforcement officer who had made a representation in relation to this application.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The applicants addressed the sub-committee.  They also called a witness.  Members had questions for the applicants and their witness.

The meeting adjourned at 10.43am in order for the licensing officer to request that a planning enforcement officer attend the sub-committee to give their advice.

The planning enforcement officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the planning enforcement officer.

The Metropolitan Police representative addressed the sub-committee. Members had no questions for the police.

The trading standards officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the trading standards officer.

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

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 12.21pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 12.30pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Mr Osagie Omoruyi and Miss Shelia Omoruyifor a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asKY Delite Restaurant , 66 East Street, London SE17 2DQbe refused.

Reasons

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicants who advised they proposed the premises being an eatery that would cater for customers until 03:00 hours as a lot of prefer to eat after shift work in the very early hours of the day. The premises would primarily be food led and that there was little chance of people getting drunk as they would be eating “food and snacks”. In discussion, the applicants said that they would be amenable to closing the premises at 02:00 hours. However, it would not be feasible to close the premises any earlier than this time.

The applicants called an officer from Southwark’s Property Division (Portfolio  Management Team) who attended in his personal capacity and who supported the application and claimed that East Street was effectively a 24 hours a day location as there is a loading and unloading for the six day market and stores constantly during the small hours. They advised that the applicant’s proposed restaurant would provide fresh investment to East Street and that it would also add sustainability to the area. They further advised that the restaurant would not operate without full planning permission and a nuisance clause in the lease relating to noise, litter and security issues.

The licensing sub-committee raised concerns that the officer appeared to be saying things which were contrary to the representation submitted by planning as a responsible authority.  The representative from planning informed the sub-committee that the premises had previously operated as a grocers shop.  The officer also advised that the noise from the flue and extraction system would disturb residents above the premises. The application sought to operate until 03:00 hours when residents would be trying to sleep. The applicant had failed to provide any detail of sound insulation or any controls that would protect residents in the flats above from disturbance from the proposed use.

The officer from planning confirmed that the standard closing for restaurants was 23:00 hours and a premises operating until 03:00 hours could not be classed as a restaurant.  More specifically enforcement of such hybrid premises are difficult to enforce against in cases where the premises were to stop serving food as 23:00 hours (as per potential planning hours) and continue operating between 23:00 to 03:00 hours serving alcohol and playing recorded music (as a nightclub).  In restaurants, music should be complimentary (i.e. background music early). 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the Metropolitan Police Service representative who objected to the application under the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.  The officer from the police advised the committee that the premises were situated within a residential area as defined by Southwark's statement of licensing policy which recommended the closing times for restaurants as being 23:00 hours and the recommended hours for public houses, wine bars and other drinking establishments also being 23:00 hours. 

The hours sought by the applicants were considerably longer than those recommended for in the policy.  In addition, the applicants also sought regulated entertainment by way of recorded music and late night refreshment until 03:00 hours. However, there was insufficient detail in the operating schedule with regard to the steps intended to promote the licensing objectives. The police concluded, regardless of any control measures, the application was unsuitable for within a residential area.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer for trading standards who objected to the application under the prevention of crime and disorder and protection of children from harm licensing objectives. The officer also referred to the proposed hours exceeding those as specified in the statement of licensing policy, but also the applicants’ failure to put systems in place that would prevent minors being served alcohol.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer representing the licensing authority who opposed the application based on the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.  Again, the officer also had regard to Southwark’s statement of licensing policy 2019-2021.  Under the statement of licensing policy, the premises fell within a residential area and the appropriate closing times for restaurants, cafes, public houses, wine bars and other drinking establishments in the is 23:00 hours.  The premise is surrounded by residential properties and the officer asked the applicant to bring the closing hours in line with the licensing policy.

The licensing sub-committee were concerned that neither of the applicants had properly researched the application or prepared themselves for the hearing. The operating schedule failed to sufficiently address the licensing objectives and when specifically what the objectives were, the applicant cited: “compliance with trading standards, food hygiene, comply with the hours, security, nuisance and waste disposal”. The applicants have never run licensed premises nor did they understand the relationship of being a restaurant and the consumption of alcohol. Members are aware of a number of problem premises that hold such hybrid restaurant/nightclub premises licences which require considerable input and resources from both the licensing team and the Metropolitan Police Service.  Such premises are challenging to operate, even for the more experienced.  The applicants in this case have demonstrated that such inexperience that this licensing sub-committee have no confidence in granting a premises licence in this instance.

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.