Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

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

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

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 11.54am. 

The meeting resumed at 12.55pm and the chair read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application submitted by Bompas & Parr Studio Ltd for the grant of a time limited premises licence issued under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Bompas & Parr, 1 Cathedral Street, London SE1 9DE be granted as follows:

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 and the following additional conditions as agreed by the licensing sub-committee:

1.  That the premises shall operate an agecheck 'Challenge 25' policy whereby customers purchasing alcohol who look or appear to be under 25 years of age will be asked for an approved form of proof of age to verify their age. Approved forms shall include a driving licence, passport or a PASS approved proof of age card such as the Proof of Age London (PAL) card.

2.  That all staff involved in the sale of alcohol shall be trained and this will include training in the agecheck 'Challenge 25' policy. A record of their training, including the dates that each member of staff is trained, shall be available for inspection at the premises on request by the council's authorised officers or the police.

3.  That 'Challenge 25' signage shall be displayed at entrances to the premises, areas where alcohol is displayed for sale and at points of sale to inform customers that an agecheck 'Challenge 25' policy applies and proof of age may be required.

Reasons

This was a meeting to consider the application made by Bompas & Parr Studio Ltd  for the grant of a premises licence issued under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Bompas & Parr, 1 Cathedral  Street, London SE1.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicants and their representative who advised that this was a time limited premises licence application (expiring on 21 February 2016) in respect of a pop up experimental bar and food museum that would be restricted to persons who had paid an admission fee, were attending a pre-booked private event or were bona fide guests of the management. 

The applicants advised that the premises would be home to the British Museum of Food and that there would be a separate entrance for the bar/cloud room.  The cloud room would be a theatrical experience which would last for a maximum of 50 minutes.  All patrons will receive a safety briefing before entering the cloud room where there would be a dense mist that would consist of gin and tonic and water and customers would experience an enhanced taste sensation.  There would be a maximum of 40 patrons in the cloud room at any one time.  They informed the sub-committee that there is a separate bar from the cloud room where alcohol could be purchased.  All alcohol served here would be based on a monastical theme and consumption would be within the 50 minute time limit.

Whilst there was no specific bar area within the museum, the applicants proposed that there would be events where alcoholic beverages would be served by waiter service. 

The applicants were content that any conditions could be added to the licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority who advised that they had concerns regarding the objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance.  He advised that the premises were located within the Borough and Bankside saturation zone and that it was for the applicant to prove that the premises would not contribute to crime and disorder and public nuisance.  The officer raised concerns regarding the consumption/absorption of alcohol and the effect that it would have on each individual.

The classes of premises within the Borough and Bankside saturation zone applies to night clubs, public houses and bars, restaurants and cafes, off licences and supermarkets and grocers.  The licensing sub-committee were not satisfied that the premises as described by the applicants falls within any of these categories.  Furthermore, concerning the British Food Museum, that forms part of this application, alcohol would be served ancillary to the museum facilities.  The bar/cloud room is described as a theatrical experience and the consumption/absorption of alcohol over the 50 minute period is minimal and on this basis this sub-committee are of the view that there will be no impact on the Borough and Bankside saturation zone.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and felt that this decision was appropriate and proportionate in order to address the licensing objectives.

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)  That 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.