Content

The Sub-Committee has
determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the
Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of Suya Spot
(Just Suya Ltd), 13A Spray Street, Woolwich, SE18 6AG (“The
Premises”). The application is to enable the provision of hot
food and drink between 23:00 and 00:00 daily.
 
The application attracted a
number of representations against it. These were from individual
residents and the RBG Safer Spaces team. These 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. A proposed
condition put forward by the Police Licensing Officer had been
accepted by Mr Adesoji Alayo (“the Applicant”) before
the meeting.
 
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr
Steve Cox (Licensing Officer), who set out the application as per
the Licensing Sub-Committee Report with one update of note, which
was that there had been a visit by the RBG Licensing team on 4
October at 22:58. The Premises was observed to have its shutter two
thirds lowered, with a staff member cleaning and no food for
sale.
 
 
The Applicant was then given an
opportunity to set out the reasons for his application. In
particular, he addressed the concerns of residents and the Safer
Spaces team about the large group of men who habitually congregated
in the vicinity of the Premises.
 
He explained that the group was
nothing to do with him and he wasn’t in any way responsible
for their behaviour. He recounted an incident in August when he had
in fact confronted members of the group for carrying cups in front
of the Premises. He explained that he had been violently assaulted
and had had to call the police, who told him to ring them if people
tried to bring in open containers to his premises. He provided a
reference number given to him by the Police.
 
The Applicant explained that it
was not feasible to call the police on every occasion. In respect
of criticisms about playing music he said as soon as he had been
told not to do this outdoors he had complied, and also that he had
stopped putting chairs outside the Premises. He also described an
occasion when he had cleared up some fly tipping.
 
He asked for the Council to be
allowed to do its job to stop the group causing a nuisance and said
he would be willing to close his shop at 11pm if that would help
stop the problem.
 
In response to a question from
the Councillors, the Applicant said that the reason he wanted to
open later was to take advantage, especially in the summer months,
of passing trade from the train station/DLR. He denied that the
situation would become any worse if the Premises was open later and
stated that there had been no chairs outside or music played since
he had received warnings.
 
 
Mr Bygrave from the Safer
Spaces team then made submissions objecting to the application. He
explained a Public Space Protection Order was in place in the
vicinity of the Premises and that the area was a high priority one
within Woolwich Town Centre. He explained that there was a large
group who regularly came to Spray Street and behaved anti-socially.
The group engaged in among other things, public urination and
non-compliance with enforcement officers. He also raised concerns
about women’s safety in particular, explaining that female
residents were concerned about going along Spray Street due to this
group. He discussed groups of vehicles coming to the street on
weekends, playing music, distributing alcohol and being noisy late
into the night.
 
His view was that an additional
late night venue would only exacerbate all of these issues and
Safer Spaces were strongly of the opinion that the Premises
Licence, if granted, would contribute to anti-social
behaviour.
 
Ms Revell added that there had
been a recent incident on 14 September (since the application had
been made) where someone at the Premises had become a bit
aggressive when asked by an enforcement officer to remove a chair
from outside the Premises. Mr Bygrave added that on occasions when
chairs had been removed following intervention from a council
officer, they saw from time to time the chair(s) being moved back
on CCTV after officers had left.
 
In response to a question from
the Sub-Committee, Mr Bygrave explained that in his view, by
opening until midnight the Premises would encourage the
nuisance-causing group to stay later, as by feeding them they were
more likely to stay longer.
 
Three Residents who objected to
the application were then given an opportunity to speak. It was
accepted that the Applicant had stopped playing music when this had
been raised as a concern with him, but it was pointed out that
there was an “ecosystem” at the end of Spray Street.
This ecosystem was a series of businesses that were catering to the
group of extremely vocal, intimidating, drunk men. The Residents
explained that every night, without fail, the group (which could be
as large as 30 or 40 people) would congregate and be so loud that
it was impossible for residents to hear their televisions or use
their front bedrooms.
 
Impromptu fights and shouting
were described by the Residents, as well as one occasion where a
young female friend of a local resident was molested and assaulted
by one of the men in the group. The Residents explained how
intimidating it was to leave their own homes at night and that
their lives had been curtailed by the actions of the group of men.
Their concerns were that by opening later, the problems they were
currently experiencing would go on until later in the
night.
 
The Residents explained that
despite, among other things, contacting the Council’s noise
team, nothing seemed to be able to stop this particular group
congregating and causing problems. There was significant concern
over the public urination and aggression shown by people in the
group. Some of the Residents also disputed the account put forward
by the Applicant that he had complied with warnings about removing
chairs from outside the Premises, explaining that they continued to
see chairs outside the Premises.
 
The Residents view was that by
opening later, this would encourage the anti-social group to stay
longer.
 
The Applicant was given an
opportunity to respond to these concerns and he reiterated that
hadn’t left any chairs outside since he made the application
for a Premises Licence. He reiterated that the anti-social group
was nothing to do with him and that in fact 98% of them never
bought anything from him because they were too busy drinking. He
explained that from his point of view, they in fact disturbed his
genuine customers. He said again that he would not leave chairs
outside.
 
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 identified
that the primary concern around this application stemmed from the
actions of a large group of men who habitually congregated on Spray
Street in the evenings.
 
The Sub-Committee accepted the
submissions of all the parties that this group was engaging in
anti-social activity such as public urination, consumption of
alcohol in a public place, excessive noise, violence and
intimidation.
 
The Sub-Committee was extremely
sympathetic to the local residents who were having to put up with
this repeated poor-behaviour and were shocked at some of the
descriptions given of particular incidents.
 
It was however a question of
fact for the Sub-Committee whether or not the group’s
activities were linked in any way to the provision of hot food and
drink by the Premises.
 
The Sub-Committee’s view
was that the problem was not one that could fairly be laid at the
door of the Applicant and his business. They noted that on occasion
the Applicant had himself been a victim of crime at the hands of
those congregating on Spray Street and that the problems had
started before his business had opened. The Sub-Committee noted
that the Premises Licence application was not to serve alcohol and
that there was another business on the street which already served
food far later.
 
The Sub-Committee’s view
was that the Applicant was genuine in the assurances he had given
about compliance with any conditions that would be imposed on the
Premises Licence.
 
Importantly, the Sub-Committee
was also of the view that the Applicant himself was someone who was
prepared to listen and engage with both residents and council
representatives. They were reassured that he was the type of
Licensee that it would be beneficial to have in the
area.
 
Although the Sub-Committee was
very aware of the impact on residents of the group of anti-social
men, ultimately they were not satisfied that there was any causal
link between their actions and the Premises itself. The
Sub-Committee felt that the Applicant had demonstrated that he was
as much a victim as the residents, and that the Premises might in
fact be a safe spot for members of the public who were forced to
navigate the anti-social behaviour currently prevalent on Spray
Street in the evenings.
   
In reaching its decision, the
Sub-Committee concluded that of the thirteen conditions proposed,
all but the last were proportionate and would lead to the promotion
of the licensing objectives.
 
Accordingly, the Sub Committee
unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises
Licence in respect of Suya Spot (Just Suya Ltd), 13A Spray Street,
Woolwich, SE18 6AG be GRANTED subject to the following
conditions:
 
1.            
The premises shall install and maintain a
comprehensive CCTV system. All entry and exit points must be
covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in
any light condition. The CCTV shall continually record whilst the
premises are open. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum of
thirty-one (31) days with date- & timestamping. Viewing of
recordings shall be made available immediately upon  the request of Police or an authorised Local
Authority officers (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act
2003). A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the
operation of the CCTV system shall be present in the premises at
all times when the premises is open.

 
2.            
An Incident Log shall be maintained, in which any
incidents that involve emergency services being called to the
premises or customers being ejected, or any matters that are
considered to undermine any of the four licensing objectives. The
Log shall be made available to Police or authorised Local Authority
officers (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003) upon
request.
 

 
3.            
A maximum of six (6) customers shall be allowed in
the premises at any one time. Fire exits shall be clearly indicated
by the appropriate signage.

 
4.            
There shall be no consumption of food
indoors.
 
5.            
All staff shall be provided with recognised customer
welfare & vulnerability training from an appropriately
qualified trainer, details of which must be documented and made
available to Police or authorised Local Authority officers (as
defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003) upon request. Further,
the premises licence holders or representatives of day-to-day
management shall sign-up to the Royal Borough of Greenwich
Women’s Charter or its equivalent, and display certification
of this prominently at the premises.
 
6.            
Signage shall be clearly displayed requesting
customers to leave quietly and have respect for neighbouring
residents and businesses, and not to loiter on the pavement
outside.
 
7.            
A receptacle shall be provided for the disposal of
packaging and wrappings associated with takeaway food, and the
frontage of the premises down to the kerbside shall be swept, and
refuse / litter collected, at the close of business
daily.
 
8.            
Persons under the age of 18 years shall not be
allowed admission without an accompanying responsible
adult. 
 
9.            
The premises shall be closed and clear of customers
by 00:00 midnight daily. 
 
10.         
No noise generated on the premises shall emanate
from the premises, which gives rise to a nuisance.
 
11.         
Chairs shall not be placed outside the premises,
except under the authority of a Tables & Chairs Licence issued
by RBG Street Trading & Markets. If so authorised, chairs (etc)
shall be removed no later than 17:00 hours daily.
 
12.         
No music generated by the premises shall be audible
directly outside at any time. Strictly background music is
permitted pursuant to the Licensing Act 2003.
 
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.