Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee B

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 10, 2024

Purpose:

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.