Agenda item

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

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

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

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representations from other persons (local residents) who were not present at the meeting.

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

The meeting adjourned at 1.04pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 1.27pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Soon Liang Lee for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Sentosa,208 Bermondsey Street, London SE1 3TQ be granted.

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 Metropolitan Police Service and licensing as a responsible authority 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 pick-ups by food delivery drivers after 22:15.

3.  That signage shall be erected encouraging patrons not to congregate outside the premises.

Reasons

This was an application made by Soon Liang Lee for a premises licence in respect of the premises known as Sentosa, 208 Bermondsey Street, London SE1 3TQ. 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the applicant who advised that the premises would be a Malaysian and Chinese restaurant.  In addressing the objections from the four local residents, the representative for the applicant stated that the hours applied for were standard, with an extra half an hour on Friday and Saturday.  Regardless, the applicant would compromise, since the area was relatively quiet at 23:00, so could agree to close at the same time on Friday and Saturday.  Concerning smoking, whether there was a restaurant at the location or not, people were allowed to smoke in the street, so did not recognise this as a problem.

Regarding the concern of waste, the applicant has their own rear courtyard at the back of the restaurant where waste is stored.  The area belonged to the applicant and was not shared with residents. The residents’ refuse was stored separately behind a private gate that only residents had keys to their area.  The applicant also had a contract with the council for the restaurant’s refuse collection that would be collected daily between 08:00-10:00.

The representative for the applicant also explained that he had designed the ventilation system and explained that everything was internal.  There was no external filtration or fan; it was a recirculating internal system that purifies air which goes back into the restaurant, so absolutely nothing was emitted outside.

It was suggested that the residents were also unjustified in their concerns of late night music from the premises, as the premises would not be a nightclub. It was a fine dining restaurant, with background music.  The building in which the restaurant was located  is a concrete structure meaning noise wouldn't travel or echo outside.  Added to this, the restaurant has acoustic ceilings installed, so it was impossible for either the background music or noise/vibration from the ventilation system to escape.

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person 3 who explained that since they had lived on Bermondsey Street the council had greatly reduced the noise and traffic along Bermondsey Street with change in direction of traffic onto Tooley Street and London Bridge, which had greatly improved the residents’ sleep and general well-being.

Despite this, other person 3 still had concerns regarding the delivery drivers, as they speed along the road and then tend to linger in locations where delivery drivers park up.  It was feared that following the changes and improvements made along Bermondsey Street would be wasted if the delivery drivers were allowed to loiter.

Although other person 3 acknowledged the applicant’s representative point about people smoking, it was explained that even one person smoking on the street below made their home smell of cigarettes.  People smoking outside also tended to congregate in the underpass and this would increase with the new restaurant. Other person 3 wanted to see something that would prevent people loitering in the underpass

Other person 3 did however, feel more reassured after hearing from the applicant’s representative and having the conciliated conditions explained.

The licensing sub-committee noted the objections from three other persons who were not in attendance at the hearing.  It was also noted that the Metropolitan Police Service and licensing as a responsible authority had conciliated their objections, resulting in the applicant agreeing ten additional conditions with the police and 14 additional conditions with Licensing as a responsible authority.

During the discussion stage of the hearing, the applicant’s representative made a number of compromises for the benefit of the residents, mindful that the restaurant was in such close proximity to residential premises. This included a reduction in hours on Fridays and Saturdays, food deliveries by Ubers (etc.) terminating at 22:15 and greater engagement with the residents by providing a contact telephone number in the event of any issues arising. The sub-committee agreed with the conditions imposed in addition to the 24 conciliated conditions addressed the concerns of the residents.

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 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.