Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee B

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: March 12, 2025

Purpose:

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 They had only had one issue raised by a resident that had since been rescinded and therefore the objection from the landlord was not relevant.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.