Agenda item

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

The applicant and their proposed designated premises supervisor addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the applicant.

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 went into closed session at 2.57pm. 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 3.25pm. The chair did not read out the decision as none of the parties were present.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Paul Graham for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Unit C, Montreal House, Surrey Quays Road, London SE16 7AQ 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 and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

1.  That the capacity of the premises shall be limited to 160 patrons at any one time.

2.  That all sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only.

3.  That no more than five smokers shall be permitted to smoke outside at any one time.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who informed the sub-committee that there had been a previous licence at the premises but this had been surrendered.  They provided a copy of the previous licence for the sub-committee to consider.

The applicant sought to rely on their extensive experience of operating another premises in the area, namely the Mayflower.  The designated premises supervisor assured the sub-committee that her six years managing the Mayflower equipped her with the necessary knowledge and experience of the licensing objectives and the local area which would ensure that this was a well run premises.

The applicant acknowledged the representations from the responsible authorities, the ward councillors and the local residents and sought to address these by reducing the hours for which they were applying.  They also dealt with concerns raised regarding noise nuisance by explaining to the sub-committee that both deliveries and refuse would be dealt with in the basement car park resulting in minimal noise disturbance.  They confirmed that the rear courtyard would not be used at any time and that the exits leading to the courtyard would only be used in emergencies.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority.  They set out concerns regarding the lack of information provided by the applicant as to how the premises will operate and why the extended hours are necessary for the restaurant and bar.  The licensing officer was especially concerned to address this in light of the fact that the hours fall outside of the recommended hours set out in the borough’s licensing policy.  The officer asked for the sub-committee to consider limiting the hours of supply of alcohol to finish before the terminal hour to allow time for patrons to finish their drinks before they are asked to leave.

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representation from the public health authority officer who sought further information from the applicant as to why the application required off sales of alcohol.  They also made representations regarding the extended hours, citing reasons relating to public safety and public nuisance to refuse such early starting times and late finishing hours.  They recommended a start time as 11:00 each day and suggested end times in line with Southwark’s licensing policy. 

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representations from the two ward councillors objecting to the application, who also made representations regarding the long hours.  They each stated that the area was a residential area and that whilst they welcomed the application for a restaurant, that concerns relating to noise nuisance coupled with the late hours were of concern.  They suggested earlier end times and later opening hours would be a way of limiting the impact on local residents.

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representations from two other persons objecting to the application who stated that they lived in close proximity to the proposed premises.  They also stated that they were concerned regarding the lack of information as to how the premises would operate, though the concerns were focused on the long operation hours.  They discussed the likely effect of increased anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance and that fact that this is the only operation of its kind in a predominantly residential area. 

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and were of the opinion that the applicant sufficiently addressed the licensing objectives and the concerns raised.  They were reassured by the applicant’s professional record and the information provided about the future business. The licensable hours agreed are in line with the borough’s licensing policy.

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.