Agenda item

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

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

The licensing responsible authority addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

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

The meeting adjourned at 3.10pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 3.19pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Shital Mehta for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as the London Bridge Local, Part Ground Floor 85-87 Borough High Street London SE1 1NH be granted.

1.  Hours

2.  Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the operation schedule highlighted in section M of the application form and the following additional condition agreed by the licensing sub-committee

1.  That a minimum of one SIA qualified and registered member of security personnel will be engaged on both Friday and Saturday evenings, along with other days of the week subject to an ongoing risk assessment.

3.  Reasons

This was an application made by Shital Mehta for a premises licence to be granted in respect of the premises known as London Bridge Local, Part Ground Floor 85-87 Borough High Street, London SE1 1NH.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant’s representative who accepted that they were conscious of the concern of Licensing as a responsible authority that the premises was located in a cumulative impact area (CIA) and that the application had been refused in 2023 largely on the same basis.

Since 2023, the applicant had redesigned the premises.  The shop was 30m² and all of the blind spots in the shop had been removed.  The majority of the alcohol was located behind the counter.  The small range of alcohol not behind the counter, was held in a lockable fridge.

There were five staff employed all of whom had received considerable staff training, provided by way of internal staff training and external training providers. The applicant and her husband were current personal licence holders, a third staff member had passed the Highfields accredited personal licence holder (APLH) level 5 course and in the process of applying for their personal licence and the two remaining staff were due to undertake the APLH qualification and would be personal licence holders by early summer.  This would guarantee at least one staff member being a personal licence holder in the shop at all times, irrespective of the staff rota.

Although it was accepted that there was a large number of licensed premises in the vicinity, the applicant’s representative asserted that with the sub-committee could still make an exception to the CIA policy and grant a licence.  The nearest licensed convenience store was Londis and although they had a premises licence, they no longer sold alcohol.  Another two licensed premises had recently closed.

In relation to the issue of people drinking in the street, the premises would deter this by ensuring that all alcohol sales were sold in taped plastic bags.  In discussion with the members, whilst this was an admirable attempt to curb street drinking, it was at odds with the statement of licensing policy (SoLP) and the use of single use plastics (paragraph 205).  The applicant agreed that they would endeavor to find an alternative to using single use plastics in the future,

Finally, the temporary event notices (TENs) at the premises had resulted in no issues being reported.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing as a responsible authority officer, who maintained their objection due to the premises being in a CIA, adding that in accordance with the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 TENs should not be seen as a precursor to the grant of a premises licence. 

The officer also referred members to paragraph 162 of the SoLP of factors that the authority may consider as demonstrating that there will be no impact to the CIA.

The licensing sub-committee considered the decision from 12 September 2023 in respect of the premises and were satisfied that the previously concerns raised had been addressed. 

Concerning the CIA, premises, members were mindful that paragraph 162 of the SoLP (matters that demonstrated a premises would not add to cumulative impact).  This was not an exhaustive list.  Relevant points that members to into account included were: the premises was small and would not be alcohol led; the premises had reduced the hours of operation to midnight (Sunday to Thursday); there would be ample staff coverage with at least one personal licence holder on the premises at all times and recent closure of other licensed premises.

The sub-committee were satisfied that granting the applicant a premises licence, would not undermine the licensing objectives.

In reaching this decision, the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, the public sector equality duty and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

4.  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.