Decision

1. The Licensing Authority applied for a review of the Premises Licence on 20th March 2026 for Civaena 2 Espana Bar Y Restaurant, 481 New Cross Road SE14 6TA (“the Premises”).
2. The application for the review was served on all responsible authorities and has been advertised in accordance with regulation 38 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005. The last date for representations was 8th May 2026.
3. Five representations were received, three from local residents, one from the ASB nuisance team and one from the Metropolitan Police. The representations were received within the specified time, were examined by Officers and were not considered to be vexatious or frivolous.
4. The Licensing Sub-Committee A held a meeting on the 10th June 2026 to consider the Application. Safer Communities, Licensing Officer, Angela Murrell, introduced the report. Mr Samaroo, representing the premises licence holder (“PLH”), then made a request to adjourn the hearing. Mr Samaroo stated that he had only been instructed the Thursday before the hearing and that despite his best efforts he had not had sufficient time to properly review all the information in the bundle and take instructions. Mr Samaroo stated that this was not a tactical delay, that the request was made in the interests of fairness and that during any adjournment the premises would make significant and immediate changes to its business.
5. The Licensing Authority, represented by Kennedy Obazee, resisted the request for an adjournment on the basis that the Licensing Authority wanted to ensure that the premises was compliant with its licence and that residents were no longer subject to noise nuisance. The ASB Nuisance team, represented by Steve Phillips, also resisted the request for an adjournment given the significant impact on local residents. Two local residents also resisted the request for an adjournment given the nuisance they had experienced, including the weekend before the hearing. Mr Samaroo indicated that the premises would consider closing for a period of two weeks during any adjournment period.
6. The Sub-Committee retired to consider the request for an adjournment and returned with the following decision: ‘The Sub-Committee has considered the request for an adjournment and has had due regard to the representations made. The Sub-Committee has decided to refuse the request for an adjournment because it does not consider it to be necessary in the public interest to adjourn the hearing. There is a strong public interest in the application for review being determined as soon as possible, particularly given the concerns raised by both residents and responsible authorities. Notice of the hearing was given to the licence holder in advance of the hearing, and the Subcommittee considers that the licence holder has had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.’
7. Mr Obazee then addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. Mr Obazee stated that the premises had recently been granted a variation which allowed extended licensable activities in the basement area only, subject to safeguarding conditions such as no vertical drinking and alcohol served only to seated customers, SIA provision and sound limiters. Unfortunately, following the grant of this variation, the Licensing Authority began to receive complaints relating to noise nuisance. The Licensing Authority had witnessed a statutory nuisance from a nearby residential property, which was also a breach of condition 19 of the premises licence. Mr Obazee submitted that there had been numerous breaches of conditions. Mr Obazee also explained that although the Licensing Authority had attempted to resolve matters without initiating a review, this had been unsuccessful. Mr Obazee asked the Subcommittee to consider removal of the DPS and strengthened conditions.
8. A local resident then addressed the Sub-Committee. The resident stated that they had never experienced anything like this in their 16 years of living in the local community. The resident stated that when patrons came out they were fighting and this was very frightening, with security guards outside doing absolutely nothing. The resident stated that the premises had in effect turned into a nightclub.
9. PC Shaun Rodway then addressed the Subcommittee on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. He submitted that it was particularly worrying that the venue had not shown any consideration to the conditions on the premises licence which had been put in place to uphold the licensing objectives. PC Rodway stated that there had only been 3 calls to police over the past six months but that there had been numerous calls about noise and ASB. These were dealt with by the Council and that explains why the police had not received that many calls.
10. A local resident then address the Sub-Committee. He stated that from Thursday through Sunday there was very loud bass music from as early as 10pm until 5am. This made it very difficult to sleep and had had an effect on their physical and mental wellbeing. He confirmed that these problems had occurred on the weekend before the hearing.
11. Steve Phillips on behalf of the ASB Nuisance team then addressed the Sub-Committee. He explained that the bass from the music was the most impactful part of the nuisance, as this vibrated through the premises. He added that the ASB Nuisance team had not witnessed fighting themselves but that they did not have coverage at 4am. The ASB Nuisance team had received a number of reports which did refer to ASB. The premises had not removed wall-mounted speakers despite being asked to and the premises did not seem to be following the advice that was being given.
12. Mr Samaroo on behalf of the premises licence holder then address the Sub-Committee. He stated that the PLH accepted there were shortcomings in management since they had taken over the venue in the early part of 2026, particularly in relation to noise control and customer dispersal. However, Mr Samaroo submitted that it was not a case of deliberately not wanting to comply with licence conditions and that the PLH was now seeking remedies to the complaints. There was a language problem, and the PLH was now trying to bring in an interpreter to assist. Mr Samaroo added that there had been no engagement from the DPS. There had been a failure of management control in relation to sound equipment, and a sound engineer was coming in to recalibrate the sound limiter. Mr Samaroo submitted that the issues could be properly controlled going forward if the PLH were given an opportunity to do so and that the appropriate course of action would be to retain the licence with strengthened conditions. In response to a question, Mr Samaroo stated that the current DPS was not fulfilling his obligations as a DPS.
13. In summing-up, Mr Obazee on behalf of the Licensing Authority repeated that the application had been brought following repeated concerns involving noise, breaches of conditions, effective control of licensable activities and insufficient engagement. The conditions on the licence were designed to allow late hours while protecting residents. Mr Obazee concluded by asking the Sub-Committee to impose measures that it considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives. 
14. In summing-up, a local resident stated that he was fluent in Spanish and had spoken to the proprietors in Spanish. It was therefore out of the question to suggest that the proprietors were out of the loop. Another resident added that despite all communications the premises had still continued to behave the same every single weekend. The resident just wanted to be able to sleep at night.
15. In summing-up, Mr Samaroo on behalf of the PLH stated that the PLH now understood what was required and were taking appropriate steps to improve. Mr Samaroo submitted that the failures could be put right with a sound limiter, better SIA and a better dispersal policy. There was no evidence from the police of violence at the premises, and revocation would be a last resort. Mr Samaroo concluded that the PLH would consider a reduction in hours, which showed the PLH’s commitment to putting things right.
16. In making its decision the Sub-Committee has considered all the papers contained in the report pack and submitted documents, including written submissions, together with the Applicant’s oral submissions. The Sub-Committee also considered the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy 2026-31 and the latest Home Office Statutory Guidance, revised in February 2026.
17. The decision of the Sub-Committee is to take the following steps under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003: 

a.     Remove the Designated Premises Supervisor.

b.     Amend the licensable hours for sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the premises (Basement Only) as follows:

i.                     Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30

ii.                   Friday to Saturday: 09:00 to 00:30

iii.                 Sunday: 09:00 to 23:30

c.      Amend the licensable hours for recorded music on the premises (Basement Only) as follows:

i.                     Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30

ii.                   Friday to Saturday: 09:00 to 00:30

iii.                 Sunday: 09:00 to 23:30

d.     Amend the licensable hours for late night refreshment on the premises (Basement Only) as follows:

i.                     Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30

ii.                   Friday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30

iii.                 Sunday: 23:00 to 23:30

e.     Amendment the opening hours of the premises as follows:

i.                     Monday to Wednesday: 09:00 to 23:00

ii.                   Thursday: 09:00 to 00:00

iii.                 Friday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

iv.                Sunday: 09:00 to 00:00

f.        Add the following condition: ‘The premise shall have in place a Noise Management Policy which shall be implemented in full and adhered to at all times. The Noise Management Policy shall be submitted to the Licensing Authority and shall be available for inspection by licensing officers upon request.’

1. The Sub-Committee’s reasons for taking this decision are:

a.     There was extensive evidence that the operation of the Premises following the variation in September 2025 had caused significant public nuisance. This was confirmed by the Licensing Authority, the ASB Nuisance team and local residents. The nuisance arose from bass music playing at the premises and from customers leaving the premises.

b.     There was also evidence that the Premises had operated in breach of a number of the conditions on its premises licence. The conditions had been imposed on the licence in order to promote the licensing objectives and protect residential amenity. It was unacceptable for licensing conditions to be effectively ignored, and the PLH had not denied that there had been numerous breaches of licensing conditions.

c.      There had also been extensive engagement with the PLH, but the operation of the premises had continued to undermine the licensing objectives. The PLH had been given multiple opportunities to improve but had failed to do so. The explanation given by the PLH was that the DPS had not been fulfilling their responsibilities, but ultimately the PLH is the person responsible for promoting the licensing objectives. It was not an excuse to pass the blame to someone else.

d.     Given the significant and serious breaches, the Sub-Committee gave serious consideration to revoking the premises licence. However, it was recognised that revocation was a remedy of last resort, and it was felt to be more proportionate to give the premises a final chance to improve and demonstrate that it could operate in a way that would promote the licensing objectives. In order to ensure that the residential amenity of residents was protected, it was considered necessary, appropriate and proportionate to reduce significantly the basement hours that had been extended in September 2025. This would make the premises easier to manage and would reduce the risk of public nuisance arising.

e.     In addition, the Sub-Committee felt that it was appropriate and proportionate to require the premises to comply with a Noise Management Plan that would be submitted to the Licensing Authority. This condition would ensure that the premises would remain accountable to a document setting out clear expectations for how noise would be managed at the venue.

f.        Finally, given that the PLH had stated that the DPS is not fulfilling their responsibilities, the Sub-Committee considered it necessary and proportionate to remove the DPS.

1. There is a right of appeal against this decision. Any appeal should be made to the Magistrates’ court within 21 days beginning with the day on which the Applicant was notified of the decision.

Any person who has given notice of appeal on a licensing decision to the Magistrates Court, or is considering doing so, should not approach council officers for legal advice. A person making an appeal should seek independent legal advice, for instance, from a firm of solicitors or the local Citizens Advice Bureau may be able to assist.