Agenda item

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

 

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

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from another local resident supporting the review.  Members had questions for the local resident.

 

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

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the environmental protection team officer, supporting the review.  Members had no questions for the environmental protection team officer.

 

The Metropolitan Police Service officer, also supporting the review, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police officer.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer, also supporting the review, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

The premises licence holder and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the premises licence holder and their representative.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.15pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 4.58pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having considered an application made under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 by a local resident for the review of the premises licence issued in respect of H&G Cuisine, 5a Westmoreland Road, London SE17 2AX having had regard to all relevant representations has decided to modify the conditions of the premises  licence as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hours

 

Sale of alcohol (indoors)	Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 23:00 Sunday: 10:00 to 21:30
Late night refreshment (indoors)	Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 23:30
Opening hours	Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 23:30. Sunday: 10:00 to 22:00

 

Conditions

 

1.  That an acoustic lobby shall be installed.

 

2.  That Condition 353 be amended to read “That no drinks shall be taken outside the premises”.

 

3.  That the premises licence holder shall ensure that all staff shall attend a recognised training course on the Licensing Act 2003 and the conditions of the premises licence.

 

4.  That at least one SIA licensed door supervisor shall be on duty at the entrance of the premises on Fridays and Saturdays from 21:00 until the last staff member leaves the premises.

 

5.  That a maximum of four smokers shall  be permitted outside at any one time.

 

6.  That all windows and external doors shall be kept closed at all times save for immediate access and egress.

7.  That a direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number shall be made available to residents in the vicinity.

 

Reasons

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant to the review who advised that she had moved to Westmoreland Road in April 2016, when the premises was still an off-licence which was also run by the current premises licence holder. 

 

The applicant advised that they worked from home and since the summer, the noise from the premises had been intolerable. The windows to the applicant’s home were directly opposite from the premises and they were regularly disturbed by the operation of the premises with loud music coming from the premises and customers congregating outside, shouting to one another. 

 

They advised that the premises were regularly open after midnight.  The disturbances on Sundays appeared to have the worst effect on the applicant as it would have a detrimental effect on her work on a Monday after what should be relaxing weekends.

 

The applicant informed the sub-committee that the premises often breached the conditions of the licence and it was only after they submitted the review application, had there been any change in the licensee’s behaviour.  The applicant then showed some short video clips to the committee to demonstrate some of her recent experiences from the operation of the premises.

 

The licensing sub-committee the heard from the Metropolitan Police Service officer who supported the review of the premises licence on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives.

 

The officer explained that the premises were having a significant impact on the lives of local residents. The evidence provided by the residents related to complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour associated with the operation of the premises.

 

Furthermore, the officer also advised that on 29 April 2021, at 21:05, the police attended the premises and found it to be operating in contravention of the Coronavirus Regulations.  A Prohibition Notice was issued on this date after police found seven people inside the premises watching football. The DPS said they were waiting for take away food but there was no sign of food being cooked. On viewing CCTV, the same customers were seen to have been at the premises for an hour before the police had arrived. The DPS had stated that some of the people in the venue were working, which was not the case. 

 

The police officer contended that the premises licence holder had opened the premises to the public when it should have been closed, exposing both them and the wider community to the possibility of becoming infected with the disease. The asked the sub-committee whether this was the behaviour of a responsible licence holder.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer from the council’s environmental protection team who confirmed from records there had been several complaints of loud noise from amplified music from within the premises in addition to loud customers from the premises congregating on the pavement outside and alcohol drank outside the premises.  The complaints had been received on 12, 25 and 26 July 2021 and on 9 and 16 August 2021. The complaints came from different households which suggested that the community had been affected by the disturbance from the premises. 

 

The officer advised that there was considerable evidence to support the allegations of public nuisance as detailed in the applicant’s review application and suggested an inability of the premises management to control the patrons from causing disturbances outside of the premises and to prevent noise escape from the premises despite intervention from officers from the noise and nuisance team prior to the review application being submitted.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer representing licensing as a responsible authority whose representation was based on Southwark’s statement of licensing policy 2021-2026 and the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives.

 

The officer stated that there had been nine complaints during 2021 to the licensing unit regarding noise, anti-social behaviour from patrons of the premises, in addition to allegations of the premises operating past its licensed hours. The officer referred to a log of complaints received by the licensing unit in addition to a log of officer’s visit notes. In particular a licensing officer visited the premises on 6 August 2021 at 00:01 and witnessed the premises open past its licensed hours and as a result a warning letter was sent to the licensee concerning this.

 

Other person G, then presented their representation to the sub-committee. They  advised that they had moved to Westmoreland Street in 2012 and after a period away, had lived at their current address since 2019.  They had known the premises when it was previously an off-licence and there had never been any problems to report of that impacted residents. 

 

They advised that the premises had changed significantly over the previous 18 months, even more so since the Covid restrictions had been lifted.  There was a greater footfall to the premises from when it was an off-licence.  They stated that she had witnessed the premises regularly flouting its licence conditions, causingsevere nuisanceand disturbanceto her andother localresidents in the vicinity regularly.

 

Routinely, loud music was being played until late, often past the terminal licensing hour of 23:30. Customers habitually gathered on the pavement outside the premises to smoke, or when leaving and entering thepremises, while drinkingalcohol, andshouting. They advised that this was a particularissue when patrons leave the premises in the early hours of the morning and take a while todisperse.  The disturbances were worst on most Friday,Saturday andSunday nights.

 

They advised that more recently, since they had made complaints, the premises had taken to closing the front shutter while events continue.  Because of this, customers would bang on the shutters to gain entry, which woke residents up. 

 

They further advised that they had never previously been required to report any incidents from any other premises in the area as none of the other premises in the area have had such an impact on them.  However, the constant disturbances from the premises have had such an impact upon them that they made complaints to the noise and nuisance team on 24 and 25 July 2021, 2 and 15 August 2021.

 

The representative for the premises licence holder addressed the licensing sub-committee and advised that the premises licence holder had held a premises licence for 10 years, during which there had never been any issues, with the exception of complaints from the Ibbs and the Marquis when there had been the sale of alcohol in the rear yard of the premises. 

 

The premises accepted that it had operated outside its licenced hours.  This was not a case of wilfully flouting the licensed conditions, but was more of being misguided. Prior to the complaints, no one had approached the licensee with their concerns.  As soon as the licensee became aware of the extent of the problem, he tried to reach out to the residents, but the licensing unit would not provide the complainants' details. 

 

This was the first time that the licensee had operated a bar.  The premises was primarily operated by the licensee, but was sometimes assisted by his partner or one of his relations.  There were four staff usually present in the bar, but on Fridays and Saturdays he usually employed six staff.  There was no kitchen on the premises.  Food would be prepared by he licensee’s partner in their home across the road and brought over when ready. 

 

The licensee stated that there was no dancefloor in the premises and that he only had book shelf speakers.  Any loud music disturbance would be when the front door was opened and closed for ingress/egress.  There was air conditioning within the premises, so there was no reason for any windows to be open. The licensee also advised that he had discussed the installation of an acoustic lobby with his partner.

 

Concerning the breach of the Coronavirus Regulations, the premises licence holder accepted the breach.  He had put the football on and some customers had simply sat down and started watching it instead of waiting outside.

 

Regarding the allegation made by other person G that the premises operated whilst the shutters were down on 15 August 2021, the licensee advised that he (and staff) would ordinarily clean the bar for approximately one hour after the terminal during which time the shutters to the premises would be down. 

 

The premises licence holder advised he had a temporary event notice (TEN) on 15 August 2021 until 03:00.  This was to celebrate his partner’s birthday, with family and friends.  Three SIA door security staff were employed on this occasion.  Because of the number that of people turned up, the licensee put the shutters down at 01:30.  The people knocking on the shutters were friends that had turned up late when the bar had already reached capacity.

 

The licensee’s representative then showed a video demonstrating that there was no noise emanating from the premises and the nearest disturbance came from Arnside Street.

 

In summing up, the licensee’s representative informed the sub-committee that the licensee admitted certain breaches of the premises licence, but it was neither reasonable nor proportionate to revoke the licence.  The application could be resolved by a modification of licence conditions and suggested a reduction in hours or installing an acoustic door.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted the representations of five other persons (residents) who had submitted representations but were not present.

 

The licensing sub-committee found the evidence presented by the applicant and other person G was extremely compelling. Whilst the licensee accepted that he had on occasions, operated after hours, it was felt that this acknowledgement was more by way of mitigation to the damning evidence of the residents when the review application was submitted.  Only when the review application was submitted did the licencee abide to the licence conditions.  Other person G complained about the premises on 15 August 2021, which the licensee stated was when there was a TEN in place for his partner’s birthday celebration.

 

The sub-committee questioned the licensee of the need for SIA door supervisors when the premises had a maximum capacity of 35 and also, why SIA door supervisors would be employed when the event was for invited friend and family. The licensee’s version of the event of 15 August 2021 was found to be less than credible.

 

The licensing sub-committee unanimously found that the licensee had regularly caused noise nuisance and had also breached the terms of the premises licence in operating after hours. The sub-committee also found that the premises had breached a number of the conditions on its licence:

 

·  Condition 351 - The premises will use signage to inform patrons and staff to please leave premises quietly.

·  Condition 352 - No clustering of people outside premises permitted.

·  Condition 354 - The premises will discourage patrons from leaving premises drinking on open cans.

·  Condition 355 - The premises will ban people from premises who do no cooperate.

·  Condition 325 - No unaccompanied children under the age of 16 will be permitted after 19:00 (29 April 2021 at 19:05). 

 

The licensing sub-committee also found that here had been an unacceptable and inexcusable breach of the Coronavirus Regulations in discussions in the closed session, raised concern that the breaches were due to weak management.

 

When considering the review application, the licensing sub-committee were reminded that having regard to the application and relevant representations it must take steps it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. Those steps are: revoking the licence; excluding a licensable activity; removing the designated premises supervisor; suspending the licence for a period not exceeding three months or modifying the conditions of the licence by altering, omitting or adding any condition.

 

The licensing sub-committee considered each of the available options in turn:

 

Revoking the premises.

 

It was accepted by the licensing sub-committee that the Coronavirus restrictions had a devastating effect on the leisure industry for in excess of a year. H&G Cuisine had effectively only been in operation for a matter of weeks. It was felt that this was insufficient time for the licensee to demonstrate whether these complaints were teething problems to this new business venture, or if the licensee was an irresponsible operator.  At this early stage, the sub-committee felt that it would not be reasonable or proportionate to revoke the licence.

 

Excluding a licensable activity

 

The primary licensable activity for the premises was the sale of alcohol.  The licensee had previously operated an off-licence at the location with no complaints made from local residents. The sub-committee were of the view that the excluding the sale of alcohol from the licence would be tantamount to revoking the licence. In view of this, it was felt it would not be reasonable or proportionate to exclude a licensable activity.

 

Removing the designated premises supervisor (DPS)

 

The licensee did state that his partner was the chef.  He did not give any indication of any other suitable person that would be appropriate to who had a personal licence and could take on the DPS role.  For this reason, the licensing sub-committee felt it would not be appropriate to remove the DPS.

 

Suspending the licence

 

The licensing sub-committee did consider period of suspension. However, in view of this determination any period of suspension in addition to the modifications to the licence would be deemed excessive.

 

Modifying the licence conditions

 

The licensing sub-committee considered it proportionate and reasonable to modify the conditions of the premises licence as detailed above.

 

The licensee is reminded that the modified condition that the all staff attend a recognised training court on the Licensing Act and conditions of the licence is in addition to the condition 293(That all staff are trained in their responsibilities under the licensing act 2003 and training records to be kept and updated every six months and shall, upon request, be made immediately available to officers of the police and the council).

 

Notwithstanding, the premises licence holder’s appeal rights, the premises is not to operate until the installation of the acoustic lobby.

 

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

 

This decision is open to appeal by either:

 

a)  The applicant for the review

b)  The premises licence holder

c)  Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application  

 

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision.

 

This decision does not have effect until either

 

a)  The end of the period for appealing against this decision; or

b)  In the event of any notice of appeal being given, until the appeal is disposed of.