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 meeting adjourned at 11.45am.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.57am.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.07pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.14pm.

 

The members left the meeting at 12.23pm. The legal officer discussed the plans with the applicants.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.37pm.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer (environmental protection team) addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.10pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.23pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

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 meeting adjourned at 11.45am.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.57am.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.07pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.14pm.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.23pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.37pm.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer (environmental protection team) addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.10pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.23pm and the chair advised everyone of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Lisseth Magda Aguilera Rojas for a premises licence to be granted under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as ANL Private Hall, 73-75 Camberwell Road, London SE5 0EZ be refused.

 

Reasons

 

This was an application for a premises licence made byLisseth Magda Aguilera Rojas for a premises licence in respect of ANL Private Hall, 73-75 Camberwell Road, London SE5 0EZ.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant and her representative who advised that the premises would be restaurant and she wanted to be able to serve alcohol with and after meals. The premises would not be alcohol led and would not be a nightclub.  Currently the premises were closed. Attempts had been made to open in April 2024, but because there was no alcohol licence in place, the business couldn’t operate. The Applicant was originally from Bolivia and the premises would cater for the South American community, which was large in South London. Latinos tended to eat after 20:00/21:00 hours. The premises would be a community space for people to enjoy the South American culture and have fun. The applicant stated that she had lived in the UK for many years and understood her obligations under the Licensing Act 2003

 

There would be late night events once a month, under the temporary event notice (TENs) regime.  It was added that the premises would also be a place that could be hired for private parties, but only for the hours as specified on the licence.

 

The applicant recognised the local residents’ concerns regarding noise and wished to assure the committee members that they would respond to all complaints and respect neighbours.

 

Concerns were raised of the change of premises type, from a space for party events with dancing and then to a restaurant. It was clarified that the initial application was for a private hall for hire, but this was changed to a restaurant where people could hire the premises for private events. The applicant’s 15-year-old son suggested the business operate as a restaurant and he would work there.

The applicant stated that there would be a maximum capacity of 80-85 people or 60 covers.  When considering the capacity, members raised concerns that the premises looked more like a studio flat as the plans showed a single bathroom, with a shower and a single toilet. There was also no indication of tables and chairs, no bar, no dance floor; just a kitchen, a bathroom and an open space (which could be used as a dance floor). The applicant stated that the plans were incorrect as there was no longer a shower cubicle and two toilets had been installed.

 

Afurther hand drawn plan was subsequently provided by the applicant’s representative, who stated that the plans were now up to date plans. Unfortunately, no bar or dance floor area was on the plan. The applicant also stated that there was now a hallway / passage to the two toilets, so the plans were still incorrect and did not reflect the applicant's description (in the application), nor did they reflect the significantly altered application and they were not fit for purpose.

When asked about the upstairs residential properties, the applicant stated that the flat was empty. It was unclear whether there was any residential accommodation above the premises, but members were informed that they were currently empty but being used for storage, akin to an attic.There was both single and double glazed windows.  The front had single glazing, with the double glazing on the side. Camberwell Road was extremely busy and noisy, so any noise from the premises would be drowned out by the external noise and would not be heard.  The applicant said that noise insulation had already been installed.

 

The applicant said there was some noise insulation, but highlighted that the premises was located in a very noisy area. There were double thick curtains on the doors/windows, in the event they had a party. Music did not escape; the music could not be heard outside because the area was so loud and busy with traffic. The applicant had asked a company to carry out a noise assessment, but no professional assessment had been carried out. The volume had been set on a sound limiter, but she reiterated that the premises would not operate as a nightclub, so it wouldn’t be loud.  It then transpired that the sound had been measured on a phone application, which were known to be inaccurate.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the officer from the Environmental Protection Team (EPT), who similarly stated that the application was for a premises for hire and this had changed during the course of conciliation and now would be a restaurant.  EPT’s representation had been submitted on the pretext of the premises being a community space for private hire.  Even as a restaurant EPT still required an acoustic assessment for the premises since the previous use of the premises was as a shop. The assessment would need to be carried out by a competent person to do an assessment of the premises to show its suitability for the use of hire halls, for weddings and for music.
As far as EPT were concerned, residents lived above the premises and although the applicant stated that the accommodation was empty, it was possible that this could change. EPT were aware of an event that took place in September 2023, with approximately 70 patrons.  Complaints of the event had been received from local residents, including from residents above.

 

Concerning the ventilation generated from the food preparation, so one would not cause a nuisance to the nearby premises, the applicant stated that they had provided the information to EPT. However, the officer stated that none had been received.  On the available information to the officer, the application should be refused.

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representations of two other persons who were unable to attend the hearing due to technical issues. It also noted the representations from the five other persons who were not in attendance. 

 

This was an application for a premises licence which was originally for community space for dancing, parties and events. During the course of conciliation with the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards, the nature of the application was changed significantly.  The application was for a restaurant and the hours were amended so they aligned with Southwark’s Statement of Licencing Policy 2021-2026.

 

The applicant was experienced and was previously licensee, albeit she had not had involvement in the day-to-day running of other premises for some time. The application before the members of the sub-committee was confusing. The plan submitted was incorrect and was not a true reflection of the premises that was being considered.  A further plan was provided during the course of the hearing. This version was not fit for purpose and was also incorrect. The applicant had not engaged with EPT, nor had she obtained an acoustic assessment, so members did not have a clear picture of the sound attenuation and how it could affect local residents and/or neighbouring properties. 

 

There were also inconsistencies whether there was any residential accommodation above the premises. EPT and local residents stated that there were.  In response, the applicant stated that her son’s father lived above the premises (who was unable to hear ay noise from the premises), but the applicant later refuted that there was any residential accommodation, stating that the flat above was used for storage, which later changed to the area being an attic.  It was not made clear whether there was any other residential accommodation adjoining this area.

 

Information requested by EPT concerning an acoustic assessment and ventilation had also not been provided. The applicant should also note that the setting of a limit for music volume would need to be via a sound limiter device and not a mobile phone application.

 

The applicant mentioned on two occasions that that only 12 TENs were permitted each year. Although this is a different regime to the premises licence appication, it was the view of the sub-committee that the applicant (and proposed designated premises supervisor), should have known that a maximum of 15 TENs were now permitted under the Licensing Act 2003 (LA2003). The sub-committee recommended that before the applicant submits any further LA2003 application she attends refresher training.

 

Finally, the sub-committee were troubled with the applicant’s assertion that her 15-year-old son decided that that the premises licence application be changed from a space for party and events to a restaurant and that he would be working in the premises. The sub-committee did not explore this further, but in light of the other issues highlighted in these reasons for decision, there is potential that this would undermine the protection of children from harm licensing objective.

 

Once the applicant addressed these issues, she is at liberty to submit further application that may have a more positive result.  In the meantime, this application is refused.

 

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, its equality duties 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.