Agenda item

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

 

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

 

The chair allowed the other persons to ask the applicant questions.

 

The other persons (local residents) objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the other persons objecting to the application.

 

The sub-committee noted the written representations of other persons who were not present at the meeting also.

 

The sub-committee heard from one other person (a local resident) supporting the application. Members had no questions for the other person supporting the application.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.57am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.26pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by SET Social to vary a club premises certificate under Section 84 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as SET Social, 55 Nigel Road, London SE15 4NP be granted.

 

Hours

 

The applicant withdrew the variation application in respect of the premises hours.

 

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 and the conditions agreed with the environmental protection team and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

 

1.  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 is to be made available to residents in the vicinity.

 

2.  That there shall be no externally promoted DJ led events at the venue.

 

3.  That a minimum of one (1) SIA registered door supervisor shall be employed on a Sunday to Thursday from 21:00 until all patrons have vacated the venue and Nigel Road SE15

 

4.  That a minimum of two (2) SIA registered door supervisors, shall be employed on a Friday and Saturday from 21:00 until all patrons have vacated the venue and Nigel Road SE15.

 

5.  That SIA shall ensure patrons leave the venue at the terminal hour and cause no nuisance or disturbance to the venues neighbours.

 

Reasons

 

This was an application for the variation for a Club Premises Certificate in respect of the premises known as set Social 55, Nigel Road, London SE15 4NP.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who advised that the premises was a multifaceted arts and community organisation home to an eclectic and experimental arts programme.  The premises also provided affordable artist workspace that aimed to bridge gaps between disciplines, creating a platform for collaboration and multidisciplinary experimentation.

 

The premises comprised of a small bar area, which provides refreshment and hosts an area where recorded music can be played at background volume. Adjacent was a hall area with two pool tables and a number of chairs and tables. There was a small exterior smoking area and a yard garden area.  The applicant advised that they had received funding to turn the outside area into a community garden, allowing for drinks to be consumed there. 

 

The variation application was twofold. Firstly, the applicant sought to extend the opening hours so that they could provide regular entertainment and the provision of alcohol by an additional hour each evening.  The applicant also sought to extend its license to include the garden area that abutted the premises. The capacity of the premises would remain the same even in spite of the extension of licensable activities into the garden area.

 

Agreement had been reached with the Metropolitan Police Service and the council’s environmental protection team (EPT) concerning the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives.  Both representations had been withdrawn with several conditions being stipulated. The applicant assured the local residents that it would comply with the conciliated conditions and also promoted and uphold all four licensing objectives.

 

Most of the proposed conditions have already been in place since the premises had opened in December 2022, but not formalised by way of conditions on the licence. It was felt that there was a misunderstanding among residents regarding the term “club”. The premises was not a nightclub; it was an arts and social club for members (and their legitimate guests) of their charity with an interest in or background in the arts, socialize and exchange ideas.

 

The applicant informed the sub-committee that they knew the name and contact details of each and every member on site at any given time and all members were obliged to comply with the club rules.  Members were required to act respectfully while attending the premises with every member cognizant that a breach of conduct would result in their membership being revoked. 

 

In the six months that SET Social had operated, it had not been required to revoke any membership due to misconduct. Some local residents appeared under the misapprehension that SET Social had only been open for three weeks, which the applicant stated reflected well on the management of the club (as well as members), particularly with regards to its dispersal policy.  The applicant was therefore, confident that the variation would not negatively impact local residents.

 

In the unlikely event of incidents of crime and/or anti-social behaviour, the Applicant stated it would welcome residents making contact so that it could be addressed. A CCTV had also been installed to the side of this building, so any instances of anti-social behaviour wold be recorded and thereafter, reported to the appropriate authority.

 

Concerning issues of potential noise nuisance, the applicant assured the residents that no recorded music would be played in the garden area, only music at a background level.  A sound limiter had been installed and the sound system did not physically permit music being played at a high volume.

 

The garden would be closed to members at 21:30. The garden area was different to the smoking area.  Under the licence, the applicant was permitted to have up to 10 people outside in the smoking area. 

 

It was emphasised that there would neither be externally promoted DJ events and indeed, no DJ events as part of the club’s vision. Such events operated via the applicant’s Woolwich premises.

 

Concerning dispersal, the applicants’ dispersal policy stipulated that members would be directed towards Rye Lane and when entering/exiting the premises, patrons would be escorted by members of the security team and reminded to keep noise to an absolute minimum.  This was reinforced by way of signage for members.  Residents were assured that during the six months the premises had operated, egress had been staggered.  This would continue, so that would be no mass exodus of people into the residential streets. 

 

The applicant also advised that they had received over 200 emails and letters, some of which had been circulated to all parties, expressing overwhelming support of the proposed garden area.

 

The applicant agreed that a condition could be added to the licence for contact details to be provided to residents and also display them at the premises so contact could be made should any issues arise.

 

The majority of members travelled to the premises either by foot as they were Peckham residents, used bicycles or public transit.

 

Due to the fact that the applicant wanted a good relationship with the local residents and neighbours, they were agreeable to withdraw the extension of hours aspect of the variation application.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the other persons whose representations were largely concerned noise.  There were residents as close as one metre away and hundreds  living within 10 to 20 metres from the premises.  This would mean that a significant number of residents  would be disrupted.  The other person’s contend also objected to application due to the lateness of the operation of the premises, littering, anti-social behaviour.

 

Other person 1 stated that the noise from music and patrons, both inside and outside the premises would interfere with the enjoyment of their home and interfere with the sleep of their family.

 

Other person 1 informed the sub-committee that if the back outdoor space became a pub garden they would be forced to move. 

 

The primary objection of other person 8 also concerned noise.  They advised that one night the noise was so loud that it was possible to hear the compere on the microphone in their bedroom. Other person 8 wanted the garden area closed no later than 21:30 with no music outside. They also advised that they had noticed a few people looking lost, while looking for the premises.

 

Other person 10 was positive that the applicant had provided a space for arts and the community, but stressed that it was now a matter for the applicant to manage the premises to the satisfaction of the local residents.

 

Other person 12 also agreed with the notion of a community space for the local area but objected to the late night alcohol consumption and loud music.  The applicant had stated that the external area would not be used as a beer garden, but it was apparent to them, that it would become a beer garden.  A potential capacity of 100 people until 21:00-21:30 hours would be a significant disruption. 

 

The emails and letters from the applicant’s members supported the garden for plants, pottery and the like; an outdoor drinking space was not mentioned.  Other person 12 stated that the garden area should have the same hours as other gardens in the local area and shut before dark.  There was no need for another pub garden in the area.  To support their objection, other person 12 cited quotes from the applicant’s supporting letters:  “it's London”, “It's Peckham”, “It’s loud”.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from other person 16 who supported the application and who reiterated that the premises was not a nightclub.

 

They informed the sub-committee that although 16 other persons had objected to the application, they were under the illusion that the premises was a nightclub, which it was not. Other person 16 also reminded the sub-committee that there had been 70 emails/letters of support.

 

They advised that there was a pub across the road which made considerable noise, far more than SET Social.  The premises was also close to Rye Lane which was known for being a vibrant area and an equally vibrant nightlife. Other person 16 referred to the point raised by other person 8 about people getting lost, while looking for the premises. They advised that as the premises was a members’ only club members would only get lost once. The suggestion that members constantly got lost therefore lacked any substance They were of the view that the conditions agreed and discussed at the hearing appeared reasonable.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted both the Metropolitan Police Service and the council’s environmental protection team (EPT) withdrawn their representations after agreeing conditions to be added to the operating schedule. It was noted that other person 15 had also withdrawn their representation.

 

The licensing sub-committee further noted the letters of support of 70 individuals provided by the applicant.

 

The remit of the licensing sub-committee is to consider the premises licence application submitted under the Licensing Act 2003.  The Licensing Act 2003 is a permissive regime and the licensing sub-committee must grant a premises licence if an application is made in accordance with statutory requirements.  The determination of applications are required to be evidence based and justified as being “appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to achieve” (paragraph 9.43, Home Office, Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (December 2022).

 

The other person’s concerns of crime and disorder (by way of anti-social behaviour), paragraph 2.1 of the Section 182 Guidance provides that: “Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder”.  The sub-committee noted that there was no objection submitted by the Metropolitan Police Service.  It was therefore reasonable to conclude that the police had no reason to believe the application would undermine the crime and disorder licensing objective.

 

Similarly, it would be the EPT whose responsibilities relate to the prevention of nuisance licensing objective, conciliated its concerns with the applicant and agreed to additional conditions to the application.

 

As a quasi-judicial body, the licensing sub-committee is required to consider each application on its merits. It must take into account only relevant factors, and ignore irrelevant factors. The decision is based on evidence, which shows the existence or non-existence of relevant facts, or the likelihood or unlikelihood of the occurrence of some future event, the occurrence of which is relevant. The sub-committee is obliged to give fair consideration to the contentions of all persons entitled to make representations to them.

 

With these matters borne in mind, the sub-committee is unable to narrow the terms of any condition that is already on the licence.  For example, condition 315 allows a maximum of 10 customers in the smoking area to smoke.  A sub-committee would not be able to reduce this number, which one of the other persons requested, unless the licence was subject to a review application.

 

There was also a suggestion that the applicant be granted a “probation period” for the licence. There is no provision under the Licensing Act 2003 to grant licences for probation periods.  Residents are also reminded that the premises has operated for six months without complaint. 

 

The licensing sub-committee also remind the local residents that should they have serious concerns of the management of the premises, they have a right to call the club premises certificate in for a review, which if the sub-committee is satisfied and it is appropriate and proportionate, could result in the licence being revoked. The residents are also reminded, that they have a right to appeal the decision at the Magistrates’ Court, the details of which are provided in this notice of decision.

 

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 club premises certificate

b.  To exclude a licensable activity.

 

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

 

a.  The club premises certificate ought not to be been granted; or

b.  That on granting the club premises certificate, 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.