Content

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision
from the information presented to it within the report and at the
hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of
all the licensing objectives:
 
· 
The prevention of
crime and disorder;
· 
Public
safety;
· 
Prevention of public
nuisance;
· 
The protection of
children from harm;
 
the application to vary a premises licence has been refused
in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3 within the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
 
Reasons for the decision
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from the
Responsible Authorities (the Licensing Authority and the
Metropolitan Police Service) believed that granting the application
to vary the premises licence and to extend the hours of Late Night
Refreshment will result in the licensing objectives being
undermined and will have a negative impact on the area.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that there were
objections to the application from the Licensing Authority, and the
Metropolitan Police Service (“the Police”). The
Sub-committee also noted that there were no representations from
local residents in the area, and no objections from the other
Responsible Authorities.
 
The Sub-committee took into account that the Licensing
Authority made representations on the grounds of public nuisance,
and the Police objections on the grounds of crime and disorder and
public nuisance.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
Applicant’s representations that there was new management at
the premises from the end of January /beginning of February 2023,
and they were looking to extend the hours of the premises on
Thursday to Saturday until 04:00. The current management explained
that they were not the management at the time that the current
premises licence holder was operating the premises, and when the
alleged breaches of conditions took place.
 
The Sub-committee heard an allegation that on the 11th
March only two staff were operating the premises, and there was no
security employed in accordance with the conditions of the premises
licence.
 
The Sub-committee heard that on the 11th March 2023, the
Police confirmed that it was three months since any complaints had
been made. The Sub-committee heard that the premises licence holder
has handed over the licence to the new management. The Police
alleged that the operating hours were in breach of the premises
licence. 
 
The Sub-committee heard allegations that the premises were
still open after 01:00 on 18th of February. The Sub-committee took
into consideration the concerns about the premises raised by the
Police in relation to the current premises licence holder, and how
they were operating the premises and the complaints received. The
Sub-committee took into account the complaints received by the
Police on the 26th February and the 11th March again on both
occasions they were alleged to be operating after 01:00.
 
The Sub-committee heard representations from the Licensing
Authority about allegations of non-compliances. The Sub-committee
took into consideration that the current management of the premises
have no track record of operating the premises, and there are no
exceptional circumstances or additional factors that could be taken
into consideration. The Licensing Authority were not confident
about the premises having extended hours given the alleged breaches
of the premises licence so far.
 
The Sub-committee noted that the premises licence needed to
be transferred to the new licence holder before the hours were
amended by the Applicant. The Sub-committee took into account that
the hours proposed by the Applicant are excessive and outside core
hours as set out in Policy LP3.
 
The Sub-committee took into account that the Police felt
more security at the premises was required than was on the current
premises licence. The Sub-committee heard that on Thursdays and
Fridays security was needed to monitor and prevent noise
nuisance.
 
The Sub-committee heard from the Applicant, who is the
current manager, that they have provided details of the operating
hours and they closed the premises on time. The Applicant contends
that they are prepared to offer more security and prevent noise
nuisance. The Sub- committee expressed that there was a need for
the current management to undertake first-aid training, WAVE
training and any other relevant training to ensure that staff can
operate the premises responsibly and to protect the safety and
well-being of their customers.
 
The Sub-committee heard from the Licensing Authority and
the Police that a Delivery Management Plan is needed, and it needs
to be made clear who the current licence holder is, and they need
to operate in a way that promotes the licensing
objectives.
The Sub-committee heard In relation to the Delivery
Management Plan, that the Licensing Authority should state the
hours the Applicant needed to comply with.
 
The Sub-committee felt that the premises needed to be
managed well, the Applicant (new management) needed to do staff
training, and management training. The 
Sub-committee felt that the Applicant needed to demonstrate that
they will not add to the cumulative impact of the area and they
need to work with the Police and the Licensing Authority over a
longer period to build up a good track record.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the concerns of
the Metropolitan Police Service that the application was not
acceptable due to the complaints received, and the alleged
non-compliances of the premises licence. It was noted that the
Police had offered to help the Applicant. The Sub-committee noted
that the Applicant did not address the negative impact and needed a
longer period to prove themselves.
 
The Sub-committee heard from the Police that the Applicant
needed to consider their deliveries. The Sub-committee noted that
the Police felt that the Applicant could not operate under the
hours that they were seeking to provide late night refreshments,
and that they have not demonstrated that they can maintain the
licensing objectives.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration that the
Applicant’s proposals did not allay the concerns raised by
the Responsible Authorities to make an exception to grant this
application. The Sub-committee felt that the Applicant failed to
demonstrate that they are a responsible operator at the
moment.
 
The Sub-committee also felt that by not granting this
variation application it would prevent anti-social behaviour, in
terms of more people coming into the area, consuming alcohol, and
staying in the area for longer which would contribute to increasing
public nuisance, and crime and disorder in the area.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration when refusing
this application that each case is considered on its own merits.
The Sub-committee believed that the licensing objectives could not
be promoted by granting this variation application, and as such
believed it was appropriate to refuse the application in its
entirety.
 
Your right to appeal
 
 
If you are aggrieved by any term,
condition or restriction attached to this decision, you have the
right to appeal to the Thames Magistrates Court, 58 Bow Road,
London E3 4DJ within 21 days of the date you receive this written
decision.