Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  They advised that the applicant had reduced the hours that they were applying for and had conciliated with the responsible authorities. Members had questions for the licensing officer.

 

The applicant addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant.

 

The local resident objectors addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the local resident objectors.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.31pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.54pm as the sub-committee wanted to check the capacity of the premises with the applicant.

 

The meeting then adjourned at 12.58pm for the sub-committee to further consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened again at 1.17pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Mr. Ian William Banfield to vary a premises licence under S34 of  the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Lassco,  Ropewalk and Arches 46 and 48 to 53,  Maltby Street, London, SE1 3PA be granted as follows:

 

Opening hours:

 

Monday to Saturday: 07:30 to 22:30

Sunday: 08:30 to 7:30

 

Supply of alcohol off the premises

 

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 22:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 17:00

 

Supply of alcohol on the premises

 

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 22:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 17:00

 

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 the licensing authority during the conciliation process and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

 

1)  That the overall accommodation limit for the premises on non-market days shall be no  ore than  300 persons (not including staff).

 

Recommendations

 

1)  That the premises shall not use single use plastics, where possible.

 

Reasons

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who explained that the Metropolitan Police Service and the licensing authority had withdrawn their objections to the application after the applicant had, through conciliation amended the hours requested in his original application which brought the operating times of Lassco, within the ambit of the Southwark statement of licensing policy 2019-2021.

 

The licensing officer confirmed that the applicant was seeking to carry out licensable activities on Monday and Tuesday and that the opening hours would be extended by an hour in the morning. The licensing officer went on to say there were a number of objections from residents some of whom were in attendance. The licensing officer confirmed that the premises had operated for several years and there had been no complaints in that time about the premises.

 

The licensing sub- committee confirmed that the hours requested were consistent with Southwark’s statement of licensing policy 2019-2021 and that the premises were not located in a cumulative impact area.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who stated that this was an existing premises license which he had for 12 years without complaint.  He stated he was anxious to plan forward, past Covid-19, for his business to bounce back.  He wanted to open on Monday and Tuesdays to be able to serve his patrons alcohol with their meal and accommodate increasing business demand. He confirmed that the application in relation to licensable activities concerned Monday and Tuesdays and that those days would mirror his existing license for Thursdays-Saturdays. 

 

He said that he had decided to reduce the hours originally requested as he felt that on reflection, his current closing time had served his company well and, that he could apply for temporary events notices (TENs) if need be.  He stated that the motivation behind his reduction of hours was that he was concerned he would leave a licensing legacy for someone else to use and adopt at a later date which would be contrary to the residents concerns.  He confirmed that he would primarily sell alcohol with food. 

 

He said that he intended to make an amended application in the future regarding extended hours on Sundays but wanted to have further discussions regarding this development with local residents and his patrons. 

 

He described his premises as a restaurant environment where people would sit at a table and drink alcohol from a glass.  He confirmed that he provided an off sales facility and had employed SIA to keep patrons from congregating in the surrounding streets.

 

The applicant agreed not to use single-use plastics wherever possible in response to the climate emergency declared by the London Borough of Southwark.

 

The oral representations from the residents concerned the extended opening hours and the impact of the 800 person capacity, leaving the premises late at night.  Many were concerned that the extended hours would mean more incidences of anti social behavior and nuisance.  All the residents stated that the additional two days applied for meant that they would have no respite from the market.  The residents also raised concerns in relation to the application process as they felt that the notices advertising the application were often obscured by street furniture and/or would often succumb to the weather which meant the notice was not displayed.  The residents were of the view that many residents were not informed of the application to change the current license. They felt more residents would have complained if notification was advertised properly.

 

The applicant apologised about the notices and stated that he had struggled to get his notice laminated and accepted that some of his notices succumbed to the weather.  He said he would communicate better with the local residents going forward.  He confirmed that the extra hour requested in the morning was to serve coffee and cake and that it was not his intention to carryout licensable activities before 10:00.  He went on to say that on non market days (Mondays and Tuesdays) he would limit the capacity of the premises to 300 persons not including staff.

 

The licensing sub-committee had sight of, and noted, the written representations made by all the residents and considered their objections.The licensing sub-committee  formed the view that the fears outlined in the representations of the residents had been addressed by the applicant agreeing to the reduction of their operating hours through conciliation and the reduced capacity of patrons on non- market days.

 

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.