Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

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

The licensing sub-committee heard from two local residents objecting to the application.  Members had questions for the local residents.

All parties were given an opportunity for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 10.44am. Prior to going into closed session the chair informed the parties that they would be informed of the full decision in writing.

The meeting resumed at 10.59am and the chair advised all parties of the summary of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by DMD Capital Limited for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Voodoo Ray’s, Ground Floor, 285 Rye Lane, London SE15 4UA is 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 form, the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities during the conciliation process  and the following additional condition agreed by the sub-committee:

1.  That a direct telephone number for the management at the premises shall be publicly available at all times.  This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant and their representative who informed the sub-committee that they had seven years of experience running similar premises and that this would be their fourth branch.  They explained that the business is focussed on serving pizzas and that based on current experience from their other branches, 75% of the products sold are food.

The applicant advised that they were a responsible operator and that this was demonstrated by the fact that they had significantly reduced the hours sought and produced a substantial list of conditions to address the licensing objectives in line with suggestions from the responsible authorities.

The sub-committee noted that the police, the environmental protection team, the public health authority and the licensing responsible authority had all conciliated with the applicant on the basis of the amended operating schedule.

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representation from the planning authority who advised that the planning permission for the premises was pending.  They were also concerned about the excessive hours applied for in the original application.

The licensing sub-committee heard from two local residents who raised the issue of noisy waste collection during anti-social hours.  They sought clarification that the conditions would prevent this issue.  They also raised concerns about patrons congregating outside the premises and pointed out that other similar premises in the area close by 23:00.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and were satisfied that the applicant was a responsible operator based on the fact that they had agreed to significantly reduce the hours sought and had produced a substantial list of conditions designed to address the licensing objectives.  This conclusion was endorsed by the fact that almost all of the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant on the basis of the revised application and conditions.  The sub-committee were of the opinion that this would address the issues raised by the local residents and the planning authority (in terms of lengthy opening hours).  The sub-committee felt that the above condition relating to a telephone number being made available would ensure that local residents were empowered to raise any issues should they arise.

The sub-committee noted that the planning permission was outstanding and observed that this was a separate matter to be decided by the planning authority.

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.