Agenda item

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

 

The applicants legal representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant’s legal representative.

 

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

 

Both parties were given five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting went into closed session at 11.40am. 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 2.10pm. The chair did not read out the decision as none of the parties were present.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Tobi Raphael for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as I Go Chop, 46 Camberwell Church Street, London SE5 8QZ is granted as follows:

 

Licensable activity	Hours
Sale and supply of alcohol (on and off the premises)	Sunday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:30 Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 00:30
Provision of late night refreshment	Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00
Opening hours	Monday to Sunday 24 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 conciliated conditions agreed with the responsible authorities and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

 

1.  That all windows and external doors shall be kept closed after 23:00 except for the immediate access and egress of patrons. 

2.  That a direct telephone number for the designated premises supervisor is made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity. 

 

3.  That the maximum capacity of the premises be 22 patrons and that fixed seating be provided for these patrons. 

 

4.  That a maximum of a 50ml measure of alcohol be used in cocktails or milkshakes.

 

5.  That there will be the contact numbers of hackney carriage/ private carriage firms made readily available to patrons. 

 

6.  That all staff will receive training in both the prevention of public and statutory nuisance; and conflict management. 

 

7.  That the premises adopt the Southwark Women’s Safety Charter.

 

8.  That the use of toilet facilities is available to patrons.

 

Reasons

 

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from a representative for the applicant who was able to inform the sub-committee that the applicant owns and runs another licensed premises on Old Kent Road.  He has been the designated premises supervisor at these premises for 6 years without incident.  The applicant had demonstrated a willingness to work with the authorities by agreeing a number of conciliatory conditions to address the prevention of public nuisance.  This was further enforced by the representative who was able to agree further conditions to address the concerns raised by the sub-committee during proceedings. 

 

The representative explained that the area is already a busy and vibrant area with a good night time economy and sought to explain that the premises would not adversely impact the existing noise experienced by residents.  He was able to enforce this by explaining that the supply and sale of alcohol would cease in accordance with the hours provided above and that in any case, the premises were food-led at all times.  It was reasoned that during the hours of late night refreshment the premises would offer a source of sustenance for patrons before they left the area. 

 

The representative acknowledged the concerns raised by the residents and was able to explain that the staffing levels would always be to such a level that they would be able to ensure that any licence conditions imposed are enforced. He was also able to agree to have all staff trained in how to deal with any conflict that may arise should patrons be intoxicated, but also how to prevent nuisance to residents and other business owners. 

 

The representative explained that the premises are in the middle of a row of shops with direct access to late night transport on that same road.  He compared this to being located on the corner of a road and the likelihood of patrons walking into residential areas to access transport was low.

 

The licensing sub-committee acknowledged that the Metropolitan Police Service has withdrawn their representation after the applicant accepted their suggested conditions.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing responsible authority who raised concerns relating to the resultant effect of a number of small nuisances, that may be caused by the premises, on residents.  They suggested that small nuisances could include the increase of littering, urination, noise and effect of the migration of patrons and the fact that the provision of such facilities would actually prolong how long people remain in the area after the public houses, or similar such venues, close.

 

The licensing responsible authority representative did however acknowledge that Camberwell Church Road itself was a busy road, and that a number of night bus routes ran along it.  It was also acknowledged that Camberwell is a transport hub. 

 

The licensing sub-committee considered the written representations made by the five local residents who had objected to the application.  The licensing sub-committee were informed that the applicant had written to each of the residents with a conciliation statement and that two of the residents had responded to the statement indicating that they maintained their objections.  The objections focused on the increase of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour and cited existing concerns with the behaviour of patrons of late night drinking establishments. 

 

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and were of the opinion that the applicant was a responsible individual with experience in running another business in a similar area and that this had been without incident.  Whilst it was regrettable that the applicant was not able to attend in person, the sub-committee understood and appreciated that this was unavoidable.  The sub-committee were satisfied that the representative and the applicant had sought to address all concerns raised by each of the authorities and the local residents. 

 

The sub-committee were satisfied that they had imposed sufficiently stringent conditions to run alongside those already conciliated and the mandatory conditions to adequately protect the local residents from public nuisance. 

 

The sub-committee acknowledged that the premises were being afforded an opportunity that was not in line with the hours offered to similar establishments in the area.  However, they felt that the applicant had sufficiently addressed their concerns and those raised by other parties but also had met the criteria to be considered an exception to 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.