Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  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 sub-committee noted the written representation from the licensing responsible authority.

The Metropolitan Police Service representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police.

The ward councillor, Councillor Martin Seaton, supporting the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the ward councillor.

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 11.25am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 12.05pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Abundant Blessing Kitchen Limited for a premises licence to be granted under s.17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Abundant Blessing Kitchen, 213 Walworth  Road, London SE17 1RLis 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:

i.  That intoxicating liquor shall not be sold or supplied on the premises otherwise than to persons taking a substantial table meal, and by consumption bysuch persons as an ancillary to their meal.

ii.  That there be an accommodation limit of 60 for the premises

iii.  That a written dispersal policy is provided and held with the premises licence.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The representative for the applicant advised the licensing sub-committee that the application was for a small restaurant surrounded by commercial buildings and whilst the hours exceeded those in Southwark’s statement of licensing policy, an email had been sent to the responsible authorities amending the hours of operation, with the exception of the take away service which would remain available until 05:00 hours.

The representative for the applicant stated the premises at 209 Walworth Road had a licence until 05:00 hours, demonstrating that exceptions to the policy were permitted.  Further, neither of the representations from the responsible authorities undermined the licensing objectives and therefore, it was possible to make an exception to Southwark’s licensing policy, given the exceptional circumstances of being in a pandemic; without the extended hours, the business was unlikely to succeed.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the representative for the police who reminded the members of the sub-committee that the premises were situated within the major town centre of Walworth Road as defined in Southwark’s statement of licensing policy and raised concerned 24 hours opening.  The officer also raised concern of the premises proximity to residential dwellings.

The licensing sub-committee noted the content of the representation from licensing as a responsible authority who was unable to attend the meeting.  The officer raised concerns similar to those raised by the police, regarding hours and the licensing policy.  Concerns were also raised regarding the enforceability of a premises licence, when there already existed one in the name of Malata Supermarket.  In response to the existing licence held by Malata Supermarket, the representative for the Applicant agreed that they would try and locate the licence holder and have them, surrender the licence.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the ward councillor, Martin Seaton, who supported the application; he encouraged investment in the area and wanted the applicant’s venture to thrive and employ local people.  He stated that there was no evidence that problems existed on the Walworth Road and the closing hours policy detailed in the licensing policy could potentially be damaging to local economy.

The members of the sub-committee were understanding to the application and the challenges that it faced given that it was submitted in the midst of the pandemic on 14 July 2020, when the applicant was confident that her venture would be a success.  Whilst neither Elephant and Castle nor the Walworth Road Town Centre formed part of a cumulative impact area, they had been part of a “watch area” for at least four years, whereby the licensing committee considered data from the partnership to allow it to determine whether the threshold had been met for these areas to form a new cumulative watch area.

Similarly, the closing hours detailed in the statement of licensing policy had been established on evidence and statutory consultation.  Concerning the licence at 209 Walworth Road, this had been granted in 2007, prior to the introduction of recommended closing hours into Southwark’s statement of licensing policy.

In the circumstances, based on the current economic situation and the supporting representation from the ward councilor, the licensing sub-committee are agreeable to grant this premises licence based on the conciliated terms as detailed in the applicant’s email of 28 August 2020.

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.