Agenda item

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

 

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

 

Councillor Ian Wingfield, the ward councillor, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the ward councillor.

 

The licenisng sub-committee heard from three local residents objecting to the application.  Members had no questions for the local residents.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from a local resident supporting the application. Members had no questions for the local resident.

 

The sub-committee noted the written representations from the local residents who were not in attendance.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.20am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.15pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by the Winemakers Club 2000 Limited for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003, in respect of the premises known asWinemakers Club 2000, 78 Camberwell Church Street, London SE5 8QZ be granted as follows:

 

The sale by retail of alcohol (on sales)	Monday to Saturday 11:00 to 22:30 Sunday: 11:00 to 19:30
The sale by retail of alcohol (off sales)	Monday to Saturday 11:00 to 23;00 Sunday: 11:00 to 20:00
Regulated entertainment in the form of recorded music (indoors	Monday to Saturday: 11:00 to 23:00 Sunday: 11:00 to 20:00
Opening hours	Monday to Saturday: 11:00 to 23:00 Sunday: 11:00 to 20:00

 

 

 

 

 

Conditions

 

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the operating schedule highlighted in Parts A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M of the application form and the conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service and the licensing unit during the conciliation process and the following additional conditions agreed by the licensing sub-committee:

 

1.  That the premises licence holder shall provide a contact number to residents so residents can raise any issues as they arise.

 

2.  That all on sales shall be served by table service.

 

3.  That all on sales wine that is going to be taken off the premises shall be sealed with a cork.

 

4.  That no open on sales drinks shall be taken outside or taken to the garden area at any time.

 

5.  That the premises shall signpost patrons to use public transport, to leave the area quietly and not to congregate in front of the premises.

 

6.  That there shall be no more than four smokers at any one time in the rear garden and that the rear garden is to close to smokers by 21:00.

 

7.  That there shall be no external bottling, disposal of glass between 20:00 and 08:00.

 

8.  That no deliveries or waste collection shall take place between 20:00 and 08:00.

 

9.  That the premises agreed not to use single use plastics wherever 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 this application after the applicant had agreed, through conciliation to a number of conditions. 

 

The Metropolitan Police Service asked for conditions that related to CCTV and staff training in the use of CCTV.

 

The applicant also agreed to conditions suggested by the licensing authority.  Those conditions included amending the on sales licensable activity to cease earlier to allow for drinking up time. The applicant agreed to an accommodation limit of 70 and compiled a written dispersal policy, which formed part of the conciliated condition.  The applicant also agreed that theirs staff would be trained to implement the dispersal policy and that any off sales of alcohol would be provided in sealed containers.  The applicant agreed amongst other things, that the garden area will close to patrons at 22:00 each day until the start of business hours the following day.

 

The licensing officer confirmed that the premises was in cumulative impact zone.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from applicant.  They stated that his premises would be a wine shop, which serves cheese and charcuterie.  They expressed that there was nothing similar in the area.  The applicant accepted that they had been short sighted in the way he had communicated with some of his neighbours and conceded that more could have been done in relation to the neighbours he had failed to communicate with.

 

The applicant confirmed that music within the premises would only be background noise and atmospheric in nature as he wanted to create an environment which was not dominated by loud music.  In relation the cumulative impact, he stated that three near by licenced premises had closed down, and therefore the grant of this application would not have a cumulative impact in the area.

 

The applicant informed the sub-committee that the company would impose a £12 corkage fee on each bottle of on sales wine, making the cheaper bottles of on sales wine cost around £30.  He said that the garden was never intended to be used other than as a smoking area and anticipated would close at 21:00. They advised that no  drinks would be allowed in garden area and said that the garden area did not have seating.  They went on to say that drinks could be left behind the bar if required. The applicant also stated that he would not permit drinking outside the premises.  The applicant mentioned that there was no outside seating facilities and that that they had intentionally not created an outside seating area and had never applied for permission to do so.

 

The applicant went on to say that they understood the concerns of the neighbours in relation to anti-social behavior and noise.  They stated that they had taken some noise readings of the premises and said that the noise generated from the premises was less than the general noise generated outside of the premises. 

 

They accepted that at the time of the reading, the premises was not functioning at full capacity.  He confirmed that sound proofing work will be undertaken at the premises to reduce potential noise further, and the impact that the noise may have on his neighbours.  He also stated that he would signpost patrons to use public transport, to leave the area quietly and ensure that they did not congregate in front of the premises when leaving.

 

He stipulated that the premises capacity was 70 people and that all patrons would be seated either at a table or bar area.  He stated that all his wine is corked and that all off sales wines would be seal and patrons would be encouraged not to loiter or open their drinks outside the premises.  In relation to off sales, he stated that he had hoped that the wine shop would sell bottles in boxes of 6, and went on to say that he does not use single use plastic. 

 

The applicant stated that he would welcome residents coming in and speaking with him to resolve issues that may arise from the premises and confirmed that he would be able to give a mobile phone number to neighbours on request.  The applicant also stated that all bottles purchased via on sales will be corked if unfinished and, this service would be offered with the bill. He went on to say that in his experience, patrons generally drank their bottles on the premises because of the corkage charge. 

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the four objectors. 

 

The first objector was a local councillor. They stated that the objections that he was aware of, came mostly from residents and that the objections related to the cumulative impact zone, anti-social behavior and change of use.  They correctly stated that the change of use was a planning issue and therefore subject to a separate regime. They noted that there were quite a lot of licensed establishments near the premises and put the question, “When is an impact area cumulative?”  He urged the committee members to consider this question whilst emphasising the large number of licenced premises in the vicinity and the ramifications of those licenced premises in the area.

 

The second objector did not believe that the applicant would be able to manage anti- social behavior in the area.  They stated that the applicant and/or his staff members would not be able to see customers as they left the premises as their line of vision would be obscured by a wall.  In that obscured area, the objector noted that the area was used previously by other persons to urinate, drink and loiter. 

 

This objector also stated that due to the lay out of the building, noise from the garden permeated through the area and disturb the neighbours.  The objector went on to say that the residents driveway will now be used by patrons and anticipated that the impact of patrons would be hard to police. In response, the applicant suggested that the obscured area may have been abused because there was not a business premises operating close by, which in turn, could have discourage the type of use and behaviour complained of.

 

The final two objectors confirmed that noise in the area does permeate and questioned how young children who are residents, will sleep if the bar is allowed to open until late at night.  There were concerns raised about very young residents returning home from school unaccompanied and who they might meet on their way home, if the premises were to open. All of the objectors felt that the venue was inappropriate as it was too close to residential properties.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from one person who supported the application.  In essence they said that they were familiar with the business. They said that the business was a place to learn about wine.  They stated that the wine tasting events gave patrons a chance to experience wine, which they may never have a chance to experience ordinarily. They empathised with the resident’s objections but stated that they believed that the premises would enhance the area.

 

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the objections put forward.  The committee formed the view that the objections put before it, could be allayed by the applicant being made subject to the additional conditions listed in the conditions section of this notice of decision.

 

The licensing sub-committee were confident that the applicant would adhere to the conditions placed on his licence as he had indicated that he could work within the conditions in the meeting.

 

In reaching this decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, the four licensing objectives and considered that its decision was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.

 

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.