Content

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of
The Borough Hall, Royal Hill, London, SE10 8RE
 
 
MEETING
 
The Sub-Committee has
determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the
Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of The
Borough Hall, Royal Hill, London, SE10 8RE (“The
Premises”). The application is to enable the provision of
alcohol, plays, films, indoor sports, boxing or wrestling, live
music, recorded music, performance of dance, late night refreshment
of hot food and drink at various times.
 
The application attracted a
number of representations against it. These were from individual
residents. The representations were broadly concerned with the
licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the
prevention of crime and disorder, although concerns were also
raised in terms of public safety.
 
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr
Chris Devine (Licensing Officer), who set out the application as
per the Licensing Sub-Committee Report. In addition to the
conditions put forward in the application, the Metropolitan Police
Service had sought one further condition which Mr Devine said had
been agreed by Mr Philemon Adeleke, Director of the Eden Group
Operations Limited (“the Applicant”) the day before the
hearing.
 
The Applicant was then given an
opportunity to set out the reasons for his application. He split
his submissions into two parts; the application itself and his
responses to the written objections made by residents.
 
He explained that his company
had gone through a period of consultation before taking on the
Premises, speaking to police, the licensing team and ward
councillors before deciding whether to proceed with refurbishment
and investment in the building. He said that he liked the
additional condition requested by the Police (about staff receiving
training on the “Ask for Angela” and other welfare
initiatives).
 
He said that there hadn’t
been any objection from the licensing team and that work had been
done around fire escapes and windows to prevent noise
leakage.
 
He explained that there had
been a lot of damage to the property when his company had taken it
over, that it was a listed building and they had spent a lot of
time, effort and money in restoring it. He noted that when his
company took it over, there were a number of needles, evidence of
drug use and squatters. He said the clean-up took a few months and
it required a lot of work to bring back nearly 40,000 square feet
of space to commercial use.
 
He explained about steps taken
to engage with the local community, including holding an event
hosted by him and his wife where local residents were met in the
minor hall of the Premises. He said he felt the dialogue was good
and that he provided his mobile phone number so there could be
direct communication with him to rectify any issues that
arose.
 
Since plans for the space were
published, he had noted substantial demand for it, including
interest from areas he hadn’t anticipated. These included
local bands who now had international reach, such as
‘Squeeze’; West End performers who were looking to host
more intimate events (including people who had performed in
‘Bend it like Beckham’ and ‘Mamma Mia’). He
said these were people who had a close connection to the Royal
Borough of Greenwich and wanted to host events at the Premises. He
said the Premises Licence was needed to do this.
 
He explained that other users
of the Premises included dance and ballet schools, that faculty
heads at Trinity College had contacted his company with a view to
having wind percussion groups play and that a school had been able
to hold a full assembly for the first time in seven years. He
emphasised that as its name suggested, he wanted the Premises to be
a Hall for the Borough.
 
He then explained about the
actual use of the Premises. He said from Monday to Thursday he
expected around 10 to 100 people to be using the Premises per day.
Friday, Saturday and Sundays were more likely to be close to full
capacity but it would only be rare for there to be multiple
bookings on the same day.
 
He then went on to the second
part of his submissions, addressing the objections made by
residents. He said there had been trial events to see what did and
did not work. He said he wanted to achieve harmony with residents
and that he didn’t take on the Premises to be a nuisance. He
wanted an open dialogue.
 
Regarding concerns about late
night events, he said these wouldn’t be regular and in fact
the application for later hours probably only needed to be Saturday
– the later hours on other evenings wouldn’t impede his
ability to bring the business on.
 
Regarding concerns about late
night deliveries, he said the Eden Group primarily organised
weddings and that furniture and inventory/staging for photoshoots
were required. He said he had noted concerns about late night
deliveries and would not allow deliveries beyond 11pm or
midnight.
 
He then addressed vendors
offloading after an event finished – he explained that a
finish of 11pm for example, would mean that although guests left by
then, the vendors wouldn’t be leaving at that same time. He
said he would make better use of car parking space behind the
Premises for vendors to use at the end of an evening.
 
In respect of waste removal and
additional waste, he said he would introduce sweeping of litter
around the streets and there would be additional waste bins at the
entrance. He raised a concern of his own over residents’ bins
potentially blocking fire exits. He said he was more than happy to
make a bin store for the local residents but that currently people
assumed the bins were associated to the Premises, when they were
not.
 
In terms of noise pollution he
said a substantial amount had been spent on trying to soundproof
the building in December. They had tried to seal up every window
and were in the process of studying the air ventilation to see if
any noise was escaping that way. He pointed out that as the
building was built in the 1930s there was only so much that could
be done, but that there would be consistent work to try and enhance
noise prevention.
 
Regarding road safety he
accepted that at the outset the venue did not have adequate traffic
control. He said he wasn’t going to pretend his company was
perfect, but that they had learnt from their mistakes and that
there were more parking wardens and barriers to control movement of
vehicles to ensure they weren’t parking in the wrong place.
He said moving forward there was sufficient staffing on site for
large scale events.
 
In respect of crowd management
he said he would ensure queues to get into the Premises
didn’t take up the entire pavement and that crowd control
barriers would be used so that there weren’t more than 25 to
50 patrons outside.
 
He addressed a specific event
on 26 November. He said the nature of his business was they
didn’t sell tickets directly to guests, at least not yet, and
that they conducted risk assessments on each event and ultimately
made a judgement call on whether to allow the Premises to be
used.
 
In respect of 26 November he
said provision had been made for 250 attendees at a wake, but that
more people than anticipated attended. He accepted this did cause
problems, for example with parking, and said that should never
happen again.
 
In terms of one accusation of
drug use and the sale of drugs, he accepted on one occasion some
people had been using cannabis but said he had not witnessed the
sale of drugs.
 
He said he was looking at
making a dedicated smoking area which would be restricted to groups
of 5 people rather than 30 to 40 people previously. He said since
December this had not been an issue.
 
At this point the Chair
followed up on what the Applicant had said about timings for
licensable activities: he asked if based on what had been said the
Applicant would be willing to change the hours for licensable
activities on Sunday to Friday to end at 11pm and on Saturday to
1am the next morning. The Applicant said he would be very happy to
agree to this.
 
Councillor Sullivan raised a
concern about the Premises being turned into a night club –
the Applicant said that his business had never been involved in
night clubs. He used the example of a venue he had converted in
Croydon that had a licence until 5am, but was now a wedding venue
where the doors closed at midnight. He said he was a family man
with young children and had no desire to be up until the early
hours dealing with issues at a night club. He said the proposal was
for a rich range of events and activities at the Premises,
including for example film bookings.
 
Councillor Bird stated that she
was pleased to see the Premises had been renovated and was being
used as she had used it for many years for youth activities. She
raised a concern about monitoring numbers at events, and what would
happen if an event for 250 people actually ended up having several
hundred more.
 
The Applicant said that the
event on 26 November had been a real eye opener and that in future
even if they thought an event would have 200 people, he would
prepare for 600. He said he would require higher damage deposits
and would ensure adequate staffing.
 
The Chair asked a question
about travel to and from the Premises and whether the contracts
between the Applicant and those hiring the venue would include
encouragement on green travel and public transport.
 
The Applicant agreed that there
was good public transport provision nearby, with the DLR and
Greenwich mainline stations. He said he would encourage people to
use those but that some people would always drive; he highlighted
several streets close by the Premises which had free parking after
6pm and said as long as staff were able to direct people to those
streets, then the less traffic there would be. He said he wanted to
increase in-house programming and rely less on externally organised
events.
 
The Chair then invited
contributions from those opposed to the application.
 
Objections and concerns were
raised about a number of issues. These included that there was an
irony in what was supposed to be a community hall being used by
people who lived outside of the area who were not part of the
community. Another resident was concerned that although a lot of
assurances had been given to the sub-committee, recent history
suggested that events had not been managed well and that the
assurances given couldn’t be enforced. In particular, around
traffic, there was concern about enforcement of the measures talked
about by the Applicant.
 
Comparisons were drawn between
the proposed hours of the Premises and other venues on Greenwich
High Road and that the Premises was in a much more residential
area. The resident objected to the later hours in such a
residential area and also discussed concerns about loading outside
the front of the Premises, including one occasion where a truck had
been left in the middle of the road, blocking access.
 
Another resident gave an
example of one occasion where two guests to the Premises had
thought his front door was an entrance to the Premises, and had
banged on his door and refused to leave his door step even after he
had explained it was a private property. The smoking area was
raised as another area of concern given its proximity to some of
the residential properties and that in general terms, there had
been significant disruption to the lives of residents over the last
three months. This would only get worse if the later hours and
licensable activities were allowed.
 
Another resident suggested that
although the initial consultation had emphasised the community use
of the Premises, it was in fact been advertised online as being
available for anyone to hire for up to 800 people. The resident
expressed scepticism about being able to restrict smoking to just 5
or 6 people and how it would be possible to police that at boxing
matches where people drank alcohol and got drunk. The point about
access and traffic, including emergency vehicle access to the
streets adjoining the Premises was also raised.
 
Other residents highlighted
issues around noise, and that despite not even being direct
neighbours noise from the Premises was audible, reverberating
around residential properties. They agreed with points made about
traffic, and why it was that the late evening licence was required
at all for a community space.
 
The Applicant was then given an
opportunity to respond to the points raised. He said he might have
been misunderstood when it came to loading/unloading and that the
intent was for most deliveries to be to the front of the Premises,
with access to the rear via Peyton Place restricted to
vendors.
 
He responded to concerns about
non-community use of the Premises by explaining that financially,
the Premises could not support local programming only – there
had to be a balance where licensable activities were provided to
make the venue financially viable. He explained that the building
was very expensive to run and that he had to run the Premises on a
different model to the dance company that had previously occupied
it.
 
In terms of the smoking area
and enforcing that, he said the licence would force him to have 50
patrons per security staff and that although that was achievable,
it needed more resources which would come from licensable
activities.
 
In respect of noise, he said he
would welcome decibel readings and working with residents. He said
he hadn’t taken on the Premises and invested family savings
into it to disturb residents and that it would be counter intuitive
to do so given it ruined any goodwill.
 
The Sub-Committee then retired
to consider their decision.
 
DECISION
 
The Sub-Committee were mindful
that the only representations they could consider under the
Licensing Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing
objectives:

i.             
Prevention of Crime & Disorder

ii.           
Prevention of Public Nuisance

iii.          
Public Safety

iv.          
Protection of Children from Harm.
 
Further, the Sub-Committee were
aware of both the Statutory Guidance under the Licensing Act 2003,
and the Council’s Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee were
particularly cognisant of Paragraph 11.7 in the Council Policy.
Namely that the effect of the cumulative impact policy was that
applications for new premises licences in a cumulative impact zone
would be refused whenever relevant representations were received,
unless the applicant could demonstrate why the grant would not add
to the cumulative impact experienced.
 
The Sub-Committee had read the
papers and listened carefully to the oral submissions of those
attending, noting the various representations made for and
against.
 
The Sub-Committee welcomed the
fact that there had been significant investment into a building
that had been sadly neglected for a number of years and understood
the Applicant’s submission that a building of this type was
expensive and difficult to maintain and manage.
 
The Sub-Committee were of the
view that the Premises could provide a positive benefit to the
night time economy, local business and the Borough more
generally.
 
The Sub-Committee identified
two repeated areas of concern from residents as being noise and
traffic/parking. The Sub-Committee had had some concerns about
whether the application might be an attempt to run a late-night
club, but these were alleviated during the meeting.
 
In respect of traffic and
parking, the Sub-Committee were very sympathetic to the concerns of
residents and issues that they have experienced over recent months.
The Sub-Committee’s view was that parking and traffic would
always be difficult issues but that the main concern highlighted by
the residents was with noise and the nuisance it caused to
them.
 
The Sub-Committee were also
concerned, from a safety perspective, about the maximum number of
attendees at events and how those numbers could be controlled given
the example they heard about of the event in November which
appeared to have had many more attendees than was planned
for.
 
The Sub-Committee did not feel
that they had sufficient evidence before them, for example from the
London Fire Brigade, concerning what the precise maximum safe
occupancy level was to impose an explicit limit as an additional
condition. However they did note that Condition 13 required
monitoring of numbers present on the premises and refers to a
‘maximum safe capacity’ along with risk assessments
relating to actual or expected levels of attendance.
 
The Sub-Committee’s view
was that there must exist a ‘maximum safe capacity’
which can be verified by the Licensing Team and any risk
assessments evaluated against this. If there is not currently a
‘maximum safe capacity’ approved for the Premises then
it would be incumbent on the Applicant to work with the relevant
authorities to obtain one. They felt that on balance, if this
condition is adhered to, this would be an enforceable
condition.
 
The Sub-Committee were grateful
to the Applicant for agreeing to amend his application so that it
was for shorter hours over the course of each week. However the
Sub-Committee felt that this agreement did not go far enough to
allay completely the issues raised by the residents around nuisance
in particular.
 
The Sub-Committee’s view
was that it would not be appropriate to allow licensable activities
for the full range of hours applied for, even taking into account
what the Applicant had agreed to during the meeting.
 
Being particularly aware that
the Premises is in a Cumulative Impact Zone, the Sub-Committee was
of the view that reduced opening hours/reduced hours for licensable
activities would be the only way to avoid adding to the cumulative
impact resulting from the grant of the application. In respect of
hours the Sub-Committee therefore decided the following:
 
 

Supply of Alcohol (for consumption on the premises
only);
-        Sunday to
Friday from 11:00 hours until 23:00 hours;
-        Saturday from
11:00 hours until 00:30 hours the following morning.
 

Plays; Films; Indoor Sports; Boxing or Wrestling;
Live Music; Recorded Music; Performance of Dance; (all indoors
only):
-        Sunday to
Friday from 11:00 hours until 23:00 hours;
-        Saturday from
11:00 hours until 00:30 hours the following morning.
 

Late Night Refreshment (indoors only):
-        Saturday from
23:00 hours until 01:00 hours the following morning.
 

Opening Hours
-        Sunday to
Friday from 09:00 hours until 00:00 hours;
-        Saturday from
09:00 hours until 01:30 hours the following morning.
 
With respect to the conditions,
while the Sub-Committee recognised that the Applicant has done
significant work to soundproof the building, they were concerned by
the repeated complaints by local residents of excessive
noise.
 
The Sub-Committee considered
whether an additional condition should be imposed beyond what had
been proposed. They considered proposed condition 27
carefully:
 
(27)   Music shall not be
permitted to be played outside the premises and any music played
from within should be inaudible at the facade of nearby
noise-sensitive premises (e.g. residential properties).
 
The Sub-Committee’s view
was that this condition provided a strong protection against public
nuisance caused by excessive noise. The Sub-Committee expect that
going forward, residents who contact the Noise Team will be able to
rely on this condition to ensure that they are not disturbed by
music from the venue at any time of day. The Noise Team are also
encouraged to proactively check that this condition is being
adhered to in the coming months.
 
  
Accordingly, the Sub Committee
unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises
Licence in respect of The Borough Hall, Royal Hill, London, SE10
8REbe GRANTED subject to the following conditions and for
the timings set out above:
 
(1)     The Licence holder shall install
and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as approved by the
Metropolitan Police. All public areas of the licensed premises,
including all public entry and exit points and the street
environment shall be covered enabling facial identification of
every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall
continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable
activities and during all times when a member of the public is on
the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period
of 31 days with date and time stamping. Recordings shall be made
available as soon as practicable upon the reasonable request of
Police Officer, Police Community Safety Officer or authorised Local
Authority Officer. In the event that the CCTV system is unable to
record and an immediate repair is not possible, the premises
licence holder shall contact the licensing authority or the police
for advice on whether licensable activities may
continue.
(2)     A staff member from the premises
who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on
the premises at all times when the premises are open to the public
and must be able to retrieve recorded footage and show to a Police
Officer, Police Community Safety Officer or authorised Local
Authority Officer upon reasonable request.
(3)     A personal licence holder shall
be on duty and present on the premises at all times when the
premises are open to the public for the sale or supply of
alcohol.
(4)     No drinks, whether alcoholic or
otherwise, shall be served in glass containers at any time after
23:00 hours.
(5)     Reusable polycarbonate/plastic
(or similar) drinks containers shall be used by all persons after
23:00 hours; all alcoholic and 'soft' drinks shall be decanted by
premises staff into such drink containers at the point of
sale.
(6)     An Incident Register shall be
kept at the premises, and made available promptly on request to any
Police Officer, Police Community Safety Officer or authorised Local
Authority Officer. The Register shall record the
following:
(a)      all crimes reported to the
venue
(b)     removal of all individuals from
the premises
(c)      any complaints
received
(d)     any incidents of
disorder
(e)     all seizures of drugs or
offensive weapons
(f)      any faults in the CCTV
system or searching equipment or scanning equipment
(g)      any refusal of the sale of
alcohol • any visit by a relevant authority or emergency
service.
(7)     Notices shall be prominently
displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of
local residents and businesses and to leave the area
quietly.
(8)     A direct contact telephone
number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available
at all times the premises is open and shall also be displayed on
the premises website (if applicable). This telephone number is to
be made available to residents and businesses in the
vicinity.
(9)     Food and non-intoxicating
beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in the
premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the
premises.
(10)   All external fire exit doors shall be fitted
with sensor alarms and visible indicators to alert staff when the
doors have been opened.
(11)   A written Security Policy shall be made
available for inspection at all time on the premises. The Policy
shall identify requirements such as:
(a) The minimum number of
supervisors
(b) The displaying of name
badges
(c) The carrying of proof of
SIA registration
(d) The hours of operation and
location of door staff
(e) Whether at least one female
supervisor should be available
(f) Time arrived at and left
the premises
(12)   SIA shall be deployed at events subject to
Risk Assessment.
(13)   "Clickers" or other devices shall be used by
staff to monitor the number of persons present on the premises
where a risk assessment indicates that the expected or actual
attendance is, or is likely to, exceed 50% of the premises' maximum
safe capacity.
(14)   A written Drugs Policy that details how the
Premises Licence holder will prevent customers or staff bringing
illegal drugs into the premises and procedures for dealing with any
drugs found either on customers or within the premises shall be
implemented at the premises.
(15)   A currently qualified first aider shall be
employed on the premises at all times that the premises are open to
the public. The venue shall provide sufficient first aid facilities
commensurate with the type of event and capacity of the
premises.
(16)   A Register of Security Personnel employed on
the premises shall be maintained in a legible format and made
available to Police upon request. The register should be completed
by the DPS, duty manager or nominated staff member at the
commencement of work by each member of security staff and details
recorded should include: Full name; SIA badge number; and time
duties commenced and ceased. The security operative shall sign
their name against these details.
(17)   At the commencement of work security
personnel must ensure that they are recorded on the CCTV system and
that a clear head and shoulders image showing their face clear of
any hat, or other obstruction is recorded.
(18)   A written Dispersal Policy shall be in place
and implemented at the premises to move customers from the premises
and the immediate vicinity in such a way as to cause minimum
disturbance or nuisance to neighbours. The Dispersal Policy shall
be available to be inspected by any Police Officer, Police
Community Support Officer or authorised Local Authority Officer
upon reasonable request.
(19)   The premises licence holder shall maintain a
Register of all employees, including relatives, working at the
premises. The register shall be made available upon demand to a
Police officer, an immigration officer, or an authorised officer of
the Licensing Authority.
The Register of Employees shall
record the following information for each employee:
(a)      Full name of
employee;
(b)     A copy of the Passport
photograph page or National Identity Card photograph;
(c)      Date employment
commenced;
(d)     Date employment
ended;
(e)     Eligibility to work in the UK by
inspection of passport and originals of the right to work in the UK
documents;
(f)      Evidence of the right to
work in the UK;
(g)      Signature of the Premises
Licence Holder or DPS to confirm the documents inspected and date
of inspection;
(h)     Signature of employee to confirm
documents inspected by the licence holder and date of
inspection
(i)      The employee's residential
address.
(20)   External doors and windows to the premises
shall be kept closed whilst regulated entertainment is taking
place, except for access & egress.
(21)   Patrons shall not be permitted to take any
drinks or drinks containers outside of the premises at any
time.
(22)   The Challenge 25/ Think 25 or contemporary
equivalent proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises.
All customers who appear under the age of 25 will be challenged to
prove that they are over 18 when attempting to purchase alcohol.
Acceptable forms of ID include a photo driving licence, passport,
or home office approved identity card bearing the holographic
'PASS' mark. If the person seeking alcohol is unable to produce an
acceptable form of identification, no sale or supply of alcohol
shall be made to or for that person.
(23)   All staff shall be trained in the law about
the sale of alcohol. Such training will include challenging every
individual who appears to be under 25 years of age and to refuse
service where individuals cannot produce acceptable means of
identification, acceptable forms of ID and using the refusal
register. Such training (including any refresher training) will be
logged and provided not less than every twelve months. The training
log shall be made available for inspection by Police and
"authorised persons" immediately upon request.
(24)   A Refusals Log shall be kept at the
premises, and made immediately available on request to the Police
or an "authorised person". The refusals log is to be inspected on a
monthly basis by the DPS and noted in the log; and a record made in
the log of any actions that appear to be needed to protect young
people from harm. The log must record all refused sales of alcohol
and include the following:
(a)      the identity of the member
of staff who refused the sale;
(b)     the date and time of the
refusal;
(c)      the alcohol requested and
reason for refusal; and
(d)     description of the person
refused alcohol.
(25)   The following posters, or contemporary
equivalent shall be displayed conspicuously on the premises in
customer facing areas:
(a)      'Think 25' to advise
potential purchasers that suitable proof of age will be required
for all purchasers who appear to be under 25.
(b)     'It's a crime' intended to warn
adults not to buy alcohol for those under 18
years-of-age.
(26)   External doors and windows to the premises
shall be kept closed whilst regulated entertainment is taking
place, except for access & egress.
(27)   Music shall not be permitted to be played
outside the premises and any music played from within should be
inaudible at the facade of nearby noise-sensitive premises (e.g.
residential properties).
(28)   The DPS/Manager shall ensure that
public-facing staff receive welfare training both annually and upon
the commencement of their employment at the premises. This training
may include the “Ask for Angela” (A4A) initiative and
welfare and vulnerability engagement (WAVE). Records of the
training will be maintained on-site and will be available for
inspection by licensing officers, police, and relevant authorities.
Additionally, the premises shall sign up to the Royal Greenwich
Women’s Safety Charter, details of which can be found at:

https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200202/community_safety/2023/sign_up_for_the_womens_safety_charter.
 
 
This
is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.
 
The
Applicant and any person who has made a relevant representation may
appeal the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee by written
notification to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of
receipt of the decision notice and reasons.