Agenda item

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

 

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

 

The licensing responsible authority officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

The Metropolitan Police Service addressed the sub-committee. Members had no questions for the police officer.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.40pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.11pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by J & Matt Limited for a premises licence to be varied under Section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Boulevard Coffee – 224 Old Kent Road, London SE1 5UB be granted as set out below:

 

Opening Hours:	Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 00:30 Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 02:30
Sale of alcohol (on the premises):	Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 02:00
Late night refreshment (on the premises only):	Sunday to Thursday: 23:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 02:00
Live Music (indoors):	Sunday to Thursday: 11:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday:11:00 to 02:00
Recorded Music (indoors):	Sunday to Thursday: 11:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday: 11:00 to 02:00
Performances of Dance and Anything similar (indoors)	Sunday to Thursday: 11:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday: 11:00 to 02:00

 

Conditions

 

The following additional condition, agreed by the licensing sub-committee shall also apply:

 

1.  That all alcohol to be served at the premises shall be served ancillary to a substantial table meal.

 

2.  That no patron shall be allowed entry or re-entry to the premises after midnight, except for patrons who left the premises to smoke.

 

3.  That this licence will not take effect until an acceptable written dispersal policy has been submitted to the licensing authority.

 

4.  That the written dispersal policy shall be kept at the premises with the licence and made available for inspection by authorised council officers or the police.

 

5.  That all relevant staff shall be trained in the implementation of the dispersal policy.

 

6.  That condition 349 of the current licence shall be removed.

 

The following recommendation was also agreed to by the applicant:

 

·  That the premises should endeavor not to use single use plastics where ever possible.

 

Reasons

 

The sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who stated that the application was for a variation of the current premises licence. He stated that there had been representations from the licensing responsible authority and the Metropolitan Police Service opposing the application.

 

The licensing officer stated that the objections largely related to the operational hours being outside the recommended times stated in Southwark’s statement of licensing policy 2021-2026 for licensed premises in a residential area.  When asked by the sub-committee whether the financial obligations of the applicant is a relevant consideration, the licensing officer responded that they were not, as that consideration did not fall within the four licensing objectives.  He went on to say, the sub-committee should look at the individual merits of the case and base their decision around the licensing objectives.

 

The licensing officer confirmed that there had not been any recent complaints raised against the premises and that he had checked for the previous 5 years. He stated that he was unable to check the environmental protection team’s database, but noted they had not made representations.

 

The sub-committee heard from the applicant’s representative. He stated that the application concerned an extension of services offered for an additional 3 hours a week in the evenings of Friday and Saturday.  He stated that the business had been in operation for approximately nine years with only one previous incident in 2015.  He said that the business was the only Bolivian restaurant in the area and was therefore very important to the community.  He noted that no resident or neighbour had made representations and opined that the restaurant is professionally managed. 

 

He stated that the premises under the current licence was subject to many robust conditions which promoted the licensing objectives.  He went on to say, when the premises first applied for its licence nine years ago, and the licence was appropriate for that time.  He mentioned that the extended hours applied for, was not to get new patrons through the door, but to give those patrons who had arrived at the restaurant after 10pm a chance to eat, drink and unwind.  He stated that most of his patrons could not get to the restaurant before 10pm due to work commitments.  He also said that the restaurant clientele consisted of 90% Bolivian nationals and 10% other.

 

The applicant’s representative confirmed that he did not expect patrons to enter the premises after midnight and he volunteered that this could be conditioned in the licence.  He stated that the premises had applied for a substantial number of temporary events notices (TENs) over the last year, which included extended opening times.  He stated that all of the TENs events ran without incident.  The applicant stated that he was aware of Southwark’s policy in respect of single use plastics and confirmed on behalf of his client that he would endeavor where possible, not to use single use plastics.

 

The sub-committee heard from the licensing responsible authority officer.  Their representations were submitted under the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. The officer also raised concerns regarding the fact that the hours applied for were outside the hours recommended in the Southwark statement of licensing policy 2021 - 2026.

 

The officer stated that the premises was described within the original application as a bar and café and is situated in a residential area.  Under the policy, the appropriate closing times for restaurants, cafes, public houses, wine bars or other drinking establishments is 23:00 daily. They stated that the current licence already enjoys generous hours that extend beyond the recommended hours in the policy.  The licensing responsible officer noted that the applicant had not offered further control measures to promote the licensing objectives in the new application. She opined that the applicant had not given a reason to the sub-committee to divert further from the policy. 

 

The licensing responsible authority officer noted that there was not currently a restaurant condition attached to the licence and she was concerned that the premises would start to operate as a nightclub.  She also noted that she had not received a dispersal policy from the applicant’s representative. The licensing officer mentioned that establishment in the area, which had operational hours outside the policy, had those hours agreed before Southwark adopted the statement of licensing policy.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer was asked by the sub-committee to comment on the large amount of TENs issued to the premises over the previous year and whether this would affect her representations.  In essence, she stated it would not, but noted that the refusal of the application to vary, would not preclude the applicant from applying for TENs going forward.

 

She went on to say that if the variation of the licence were to be granted, her recommendation would be to condition the last entry of persons at 12 midnight, and state that alcohol should only be sold with a substantial table meal.

 

The applicant’s representative confirmed that the conditions put forward by the licensing responsible authority officer would be workable.

 

The sub-committee then heard from the Metropolitan Police Service officer, who reiterated the concerns of the licensing responsible officer.

 

Having heard the representations the sub-committee formed the view that the variation of the licence should be granted. 

 

The sub-committee noted that the establishment was the only restaurant/cafe serving the Bolivian community in the area. 

 

The sub-committee were impressed that the premises were able to operate a large number of TENs, which significantly extended the operational hours without incident the previous year. 

 

The sub-committee also noted that the applicant had also voluntarily accepted further conditions to be added to the premises licence and had agreed to endeavor not to use single use plastics wherever possible. 

 

The sub-committee formed the view that the additional conditions would allay the concerns raised by the Metropolitan Police Service and the licensing responsible authority.

 

In reaching its decision, the sub-committee had regard to all of 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 to modify the conditions of the licence; and:

 

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

 

a)  The variation ought not to be been granted; or

b)  That, when varying the licence, the licensing authority ought not to have modified the conditions of 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.