The licensing officer presented their report. Members had no questions for the licensing officer.
The applicant and their representative addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the applicant and their representative.
It was noted that the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant.
The licensing sub-committee heard from other persons objecting to the application. Members had questions for the other persons.
The licensing sub-committee also noted the written representations of other persons objecting to the application, who were not in attendance.
All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.
The meeting adjourned at 12.54pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.
The meeting reconvened at 1.08pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.
That the application made by London Spacemakers Ltd for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as 210, 210 Rye Lane, Peckham, London SE15 4NL be granted as follows:
· Recorded music (indoors):
o Sunday to Thursday: 23:00 to 00:00
o Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 01:00
· Late night refreshment:
o Sunday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30
o Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30
· Supply of alcohol (on and off the premises):
o Sunday to Thursday: 10:00 to 23:30
o Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to 00:30
· Opening hours:
o Sunday to Thursday: 07:30 to 00:00
o Friday and Saturday: 07:30 to 01:00
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, environmental protection team and licensing as a responsible authority during the conciliation process and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:
i. That no alcohol shall be served other than to patrons seated who are taking a substantial table meal. All service shall be by waiter/waitress service.
This was an made by London Spacemakers Ltd for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as 210, 210 Rye Lane, Peckham, London SE15 4NL.
The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who confirmed to members that the premises was situated in a major town centre area in addition to the Peckham cumulative impact area (CIA). Under the Southwark’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2021-2026 the Peckham CIA paragraph 156 the classes of premises which the policy applied was defined as “night clubs; pubs and bars; off-licences, grocers, supermarkets, convenience stores; and similar premises.”
When the premises licence application was submitted, the responsible authorities were of the view that the premises was one of the classes of premises where the CIA was applicable. However, since the applicant had agreed a “restaurant condition”, the licensing authority was satisfied that the premises was now exempt from the CIA.
The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the applicant who advised that the application had significantly changed since its submission on 1 May 2022.
Through the conciliation process, a condition had been agreed that no alcohol would be served other than to patrons seated taking a substantial table meal. It was therefore accepted by the applicant that since the premises was a restaurant, the Peckham cumulative impact area was not applicable.
The operating hours had also been pulled back in line with the framework hours in the Southwark statement of licensing policy 2021-2026. A dispersal policy had also been submitted and accepted by Licensing as a responsible authority. In addition, a capacity of 70 had also been agreed.
The applicants advised that the premises was located on Rye Lane, which was a busy main road and the rear garden area would not be used for any licensable activities, until such time as the necessary planning permission has been applied for and granted.
They advised that a new kitchen was due to be installed complete with appropriate extraction and ducting system; planning consent would be obtained for the extraction system, which would address the concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Team.
The applicants were very experienced operators and already had a premises in the Peckham cumulative impact area at 138 Rye Lane (ZAPOI), where there had been no reported incidents over the previous three years. This had afforded the applicants an opportunity at running a licensed premises in a challenging area. Robust conditions had also been offered to further ensure that there would be no increase in negative cumulative impact (beyond the Peckham CIA) and that the licensing objectives would be fully promoted.
The licensing sub-committee heard from other person 7, who advised that the granting of another licensed premises would attract an increase in noise, when there was already a lot of noise generated by other licensed premises. They also were of the view there would be an increase in litter and waste from people going to/from the premises and from those gathering outside the premises as well as an increase in light pollution. Unlike most of the premises on Rye Lane, the premises was directly opposite a large residential complex who would be disturbed by the premises.
Other person 4, agreed with what other person 7 had stated to the sub-committee.
The licensing sub-committee noted the representations of seven other persons who objected to the application who were not in attendance at the meeting.
The licensing sub-committee were satisfied that the premises was exempt from the Peckham CIA and therefore the rebuttal presumption (that the premises is likely to add to the existing cumulative impact and would normally be refused) was not applicable. The applicants were experienced and no issues had been reported concerning the premises they ran at 138 Rye Lane.
In addition, the operating schedule include a suite of conditions and the applicants has agreed further conditions with the responsible authorities. The sub-committee were therefore satisfied that the premises would not have a detrimental effect on the residents opposite.
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.
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.