Content

ROYAL BOROUGH OF GREENWICH

RECORD OF THE DECISIONS OF THE LICENSING

SUB COMMITTEE - B

HELD AT 10.30 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 2025,
ONLINE
 
Members present:
Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins
(Chair)
Councillor Odette
McGahey
Councillor Roger
Tester
 
Also
present:
Jane Dyer (Licensing Officer),
Daniel Wilkinson (Committee Services Officer), Felix Keating (Legal
Advisor), Councillor Majella Anning, Laura Schinider, James and
Jeyson (Applicants).
 
Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Rupert
& Teddy, Unit A, 32 Horseferry Place, Greenwich, London SE10
9HG
 
[Note: the application form incorrectly listed the postcode as
being SE10 9DF]
 
MEETING
The Sub-Committee has
determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the
Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of Rupert
& Teddy, Unit A, 32 Horseferry Place, Greenwich, London SE10
9HG (“The Premises”). The application is made by Laura
Schinider (“the Applicant”) for the provision of
alcohol (for consumption on and off the premises) and recorded
music between 10:00 and 19:00 daily, with opening hours 08:00 to
19:00 daily.
 
The application was initially
for different opening hours (07:00 to 23:00 daily) and licensable
activity hours (alcohol 07:00 to 23:00 daily and recorded music
08:00 to 23:00 daily), but it was agreed by the Applicant on 14
February 2025 that the application would be amended to the hours as
set out above.
 
The application attracted three
representations against it which were all made before the
application was amended. These were from two ward Councillors
(Cllrs Majella Anning and Calum O’Byrne Mulligan) and a
manager working at the housing association which is the landlord of
the Premises.
 
The Sub-Committee heard from Ms
Jane Dyer (Licensing Manager), who set out the application as per
the Licensing Sub-Committee Report.
 
The Applicant was then given an
opportunity to set out the reasons for the application. Her partner
James spoke on her behalf. He first addressed the representations
from the landlord, where he explained that as far as he could tell
the landlord did not in fact speak on behalf of the residents in
the building. They had only had one issue raised by a resident that
had since been rescinded and therefore the objection from the
landlord was not relevant.
 
In respect of the
representations from the ward councillors, he explained that the
Premises was going to sell high-end products which would not be low
cost. He used the example of a supermarket selling four cans of
beer for five pounds, in contrast to the Premises which would be
more likely to sell a single beer for five pounds. He therefore
said that the Premises was unlikely to be the cause of crime and
disorder or public nuisance.
 
He also explained about his
personal experience in managing other licensed premises in the
local area and that he had managed two local pubs and knew how to
deal with problematic customers should the need arise.
 
Councillor McGahey raised the
Ask for Angela scheme and asked whether the Premises would be
willing to add a licence condition relating to the scheme in
addition to those already proposed. This was agreed to.
 
Councillor Tester asked about
the potential to sell cheaper alcohol than had been discussed so
far and the response was that the ethos of the Premises would very
much be to sell high-end, bespoke produce and selling lower cost
alcohol at bulk was not what the Premises was trying to
achieve.
 
The Chair asked about open
containers of alcohol and the response was that this was not
something that the Premises intended to do – their products
would be something to buy as a special treat, to take home and
enjoy and the same was true for any food that was sold at the
Premises if not consumed on-site.
 
Councillor Anning then spoke,
explaining that having heard what had been said on behalf of the
Applicant that her concerns had been addressed. She said that she
felt very reassured by the assurances that had been given and that
the Premises was actually likely to contribute to a more peaceful
Thames Path at the times it would be open. She said that the
details provided today suggested that the Premises would actually
contribute to the safety of the area and not take away from
it.
 
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 was
particularly persuaded by the representations put forward on behalf
of the Applicant about the type of establishment the Premises would
be and that concerns about opening hours had already resulted in
shorter hours being agreed. The Sub-Committee accepted in good
faith the representations about the type of establishment this
would be. The Sub-Committee made its decision on the basis that the
Premises will be run with the ethos talked about in the
meeting.
 
The Sub-Committee were of the
view that if the Premises is run in the way that was put forward
today, as a high-end delicatessen, the chances of the licensing
objectives being frustrated were very low indeed. In considering
the cumulative impact zone the Sub-Committee were persuaded that an
establishment of this type would in fact be very likely to improve
the area and therefore that the Applicant had demonstrated the
grant of the licence would not add to the cumulative impact
experienced.
 
The Sub-Committee were grateful
for the Applicant’s agreement to support the “Ask for
Angela” scheme and concluded that the addition of two
conditions to the proposed licence conditions should reflect this.
In particular that public-facing staff should undergo welfare
training, specifically including training in this scheme, and that
there should be a requirement to update the incident log of any
occasion where a customer used the scheme. These additional
conditions are reflected in conditions (10)e and (13).
 
   
Accordingly, the Sub Committee
unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises
Licence in respect of Rupert & Teddy, Unit A, 32 Horseferry
Place, Greenwich, London SE10 9HG be GRANTED subject to
the following conditions:
 
(1)A personal
licence holder shall be on duty during all times the premises is
open for licensable activity.
(2)The premises
shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system. All entry
and exit points shall be covered enabling frontal 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 customers and staff remain on
the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period
of thirty-one (31) days with date and time-stamping.
(3)A staff member
from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV
system shall be on the premises at all times whilst customers and
staff are present, therefore viewing of recordings shall be made
available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised
Council Officers (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act
2003). A staff member must be able to provide Police or authorised
Council Officers with a working copy of recent CCTV images or data
with two (2) working days from date of request on a readable
format/media.
(4)Staff shall be
trained in the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 in relation
to the licensing objectives, and the laws relating to underage
sales, and the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons. This
training shall be documented and repeated at three (3)-monthly
intervals. This shall be documented and signed & dated by the
Designated Premises Supervisor and the member of staff receiving
the training. This training log shall be kept on the premises and
made available for inspection by Police and authorised officers of
the licensing authority (as defined by
Section 13, Licensing Act 2003) upon
request.
(5)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 shall 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.
(6)A refusals log
shall be kept at the premises and made immediately available on
request to the Police or an authorised person (as defined by
Section 13, Licensing Act 2003). 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.
(7)A direct contact
telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly
available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number
is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity
of the premises.
(8)A logbook or
recording system shall be kept upon the premises in which
particulars of inspections made by the Police or authorised Council
Officers (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003) shall be
entered.
(9)All amplified
music shall be played via an in-house permanently installed music
system and shall be subject to the control of the venue
management.
(10)        
An incident log shall be kept at the premises and
made available on request to the Police or authorised officers of
the local authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003).
The log shall record the following:
a.   
All crimes reported to the venue
b.   
All ejections of customers
c.   
Any incidents of disorder (disturbance caused either
by one person or a group of people)
d.   
Any faults in the CCTV system. An entry shall be
made every fourteen (14) days as a minimum, confirming a successful
test of the CCTV system, with details of the staff member also
recorded
e.   
Any occasion where the “Ask for Angela”
scheme is triggered by a customer
(11)        
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 shall 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
(12)        
No children (persons under 18) shall be allowed on
the premises unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
(13)        
All public-facing staff must receive welfare
training both annually and upon the commencement of their
employment at the premises. This training should include the
“Ask for Angela” (A4A) initiative. Records of the
training will be maintained on-site in the training log and will be
available for inspection by licensing officers, police, and
relevant authorities.
 
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.