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 officer from the Metropolitan Police Service addressed the sub-committee. Members had no questions for the police officer.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the officer.

 

The environmental protection officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the environmental protection officer.

 

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

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.55pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.32pm and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made byColab Charitable Foundation for a premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asThe Cottage, 169a Borough High Street, SE1 1HR is refused.

 

Reasons

 

This was an application made by Colab Charitable Foundation for a premises licence in respect of the premises known asThe Cottage, 169a Borough High Street, SE1 1HR.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who explained it was charitable theatre company and community group that had operated in Southwark for approximately 14 years.  They applicant utilised empty buildings earmarked for demolition and created spaces for immersive theatre and art centres.

 

The Cottage was a premises they intended to take over.  It was their intention to provide an immersive theatre and café/cocktail bar.  The Cottage was small, in comparison to their previous ventures and would have a capacity of a maximum It would not be a loud or obnoxious venue that give rise to nuisance to the surrounding area. 

 

The applicant had reached out to local residents who were on board with its proposals. To the Applicant’s advantage, there was a pub below the premises that had been in existence for almost 100 years, so would have a limited impact. The premises would not be a DJ-led music events space or anything similar.

 

The reason the applicant sought later hours on the licence was twofold. Financially the applicant would attract greater revenue.  Also, currently, the applicant was obtaining funding from the Arts Council invitational theatre, which were for very small scale shows with limited actors.  The shows were lengthy in duration and started at midday and were physically taxing on the actor, so later hours provided leeway for new shows requiring late night hours if they were particularly dark or mysterious.

 

The applicant had conciliated on many issues but needed to fight back on the issue of hours. When pushed on the subject, the applicant stated that they needed the 05:00 hours licence or nothing, although at a push, they would agree 03:00 hours.

 

Regarding the hours being outside those recommended in the Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLP), the premises would not be an alcohol led space, like many of the venues in the SE1 area.

 

Customers of The Cottage would primarily be going to watch a show or sitting quietly rather than being loud seeking a party atmosphere. The Applicant was unable to prove they were not going to be a nightclub but sought to give their assurance of it.

 

During the discussion stage of the applicant’s evidence, it was also pointed out that although the application gave a description of a late night café (Agenda, page 94), late-night refreshment was not sought.  The applicant explained that late night refreshment hadn’t been applied for because they didn’t want to serve hot food between 23:00 to 05:00 hours; the kitchen was too small to cater for hot food at those times and preferred to sell snacks or olives. The applicant had not appreciated that hot coffee and tea required a late night refreshment licence.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service whose representation was based on the prevention of crime and disorder licencing objective and stated that the application sought exceptionally late hours for the sale of alcohol and four hours beyond the recommended hours in the SoLP. 

 

Prior to the hearing, the police did engage with the applicant and visited the premises where discussions took place. As part of the discussions, the police recommended a reduction in hours to bring the application closer to the SoLP.  This was considered reasonable given the location of the premises and lack of trading history. Without it, members had no evidence of how the venue would operate in practice. However, the applicant chose to proceed with the application unchanged.

 

The police identified potential issues such as the concentration of licenced premises and the associated issues of crime, disorder, antisocial behaviour and alcohol related harm linked to the night-time economy and the proposed alcohol
sales until 05:00 hours were of particular concern in view of the premises operating substantially later than nearby venues, such as the Blue Eyed Maid, which closed at 00:30 hours and was problematic at the location.

 

The Officer concluded that granting the hours would keep patrons in the night-time economy long after many other venues were closed which would delay dispersal into the early hours of the morning.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer representing licensing as a responsible authority who stated that licencing were concerned the premises was described as a late-night café, but no late-night refreshment had been applied for.

 

The applicant’s verbal submission of a cultural space and not being alcohol led, was not what was currently before the sub-committee. The hours applied for were more akin to a nightclub, albeit very small, and the sale of alcohol hours far exceeded the SoLP.  Members could be concerned the premises could become an after-party venue. It was entirely possible there was nothing sinister
about the application but members needed to be satisfied that granting hours outside the SoLP would be promoting the licencing objectives.

 

The licencing sub-committee then heard from the officer representing the environmental protection team (EPT) whose objection was also based on the hours applied for.  The officer had met with the applicant and was aware of its previous ventures in the area. As far as EPT were concerned, the applicant was a good operator; there had been no known issues at any of the applicant’s previous venues.

EPT had expected more information from the applicant such as a dispersal policy, a noise management plan, visuals of the space etc. in order to agree conditions and hours. Like the police, EPT hadn’t provided any proposed conditions/hours because hours would generate different conditions.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted the representations from two other persons who were not in attendance at the hearing.

In considering the application the licensing sub-committee recognised the applicant previously held premises licenses with Southwark and the there were no reported issues known to the responsible authorities.

 

The Cottage, however, was located in the centre of the Borough and Bankside cumulative impact area.  While all applications before the sub-committee were considered on their own merits, a licence, once granted, could easily be transferred.  It was therefore important that the detailed proposals for the premises were known, so that conditions could be properly tailored for the premises.

Due to the fact that the premises was located in the Borough and Bankside cumulative impact area, the licensing sub-committee expected premises in the area to be of an exceptional quality and granted in exceptional circumstances. The application lacked the necessary detail that allowed the sub-committee to make an informed decision to know it was either exceptional (or not), or whether exceptional circumstances could be applied.

 

The applicant is encouraged to reapply, with a detailed application, having taken on board the concerns raised by the responsible authorities.

 

In reaching its decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, its equality duties and four licensing objectives and the National Licensing Policy Framework for the Hospitality and Leisure Sectors England and Wales (November 2025) 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 desires to contend:

 

a.  That the licence ought not to have been granted; or

b.  That, on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought not 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 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.