Agenda item

As the applicant for this item had not been present at the beginning of the meeting, the chair asked everyone to introduce themselves.

The chair then explained how the proceedings would run.

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

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

The sub-committee noted the written representations from other persons (local residents) objecting to the application.

The applicant was given up to five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 3.30pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 4.01pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Martin Ekeocha-Kamara for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as L’Attitude, 18 Choumert Road, London, SE15 4SE 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 environmental protection team as a responsible authority and the following additional conditions agreed by the sub-committee:

1.  That whenever the premises is open after 00:00 there shall be 1 SIA from 22:00.

2.  That on all literature and on the website of the premises, patrons shall be encouraged to use public transport when travelling to and from the premises.

Reasons

This was an application made by Martin Ekeocha-Kamara for a premises licence in respect of the premises known as L’Attitude, 18 Choumert Road, London SE15 4SE.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who advised that the premises was currently a ground floor restaurant. There was a small porch at the front of the premises used as a smoking area and also for extra seating. The applicant explained that he intended to operate the premises as a creative event space for the community to use. 

The applicant stated that he was more than happy to work with the residents, but believed that the concerns that were raised in representations were historical and related to a different operator.  The residents directly behind the premises had the applicant’s telephone number should there be any concerns or issues relating to the premises. To date he had received no calls from the residents.

The applicant stated that it was their intention that the premises would primarily operate as a restaurant (between Sundays to Wednesdays). It would be possible to order food up to 22:00 and all food orders would be served by 23:00.  He proposed having a book club running midweek and on Thursdays to Saturdays the premises would be more of a bar in the evening.  There were bi-folding doors that were the width of the building and these would be closed after 22:00.

The applicant confirmed that he would endeavour not to use single use plastics wherever possible.

The licensing sub-committee noted that the representations submitted by both the Metropolitan police and the environmental protection team had been conciliated and the applicant had agreed further conditions/control measures to be added to the operating schedule.

The licensing sub-committee also noted the written representations from six other persons (local residents), who were not in attendance at the hearing.

There was some discussion about the planning status of the premises and whilst not a consideration for the sub-committee, the licensing officer advised that planning consent had been refused, but the decision was subject to appeal until November 2023. 

The sub-committee noted that there had been 17 temporary event notices (TENs) in respect of the premises within the previous 12 months and that neither the Metropolitan Police Service nor the environmental protection team had objected to any of these. 

The licensing sub-committee was satisfied with the business model proposed by the applicant and the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities (31 conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service and two conditions agreed with the environmental protection team). The sub-committee was satisfied that these conditions together with the two additional conditions detailed in this notice of decision sufficiently addressed the residents’ concerns and promoted all of the licensing objectives.

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.