Agenda item

In the matter of the application for the variation of a Premises Licence, the Committee has considered the relevant representations made.

The Committee has made the following determination:

With a view to ensuring the promotion of the licensing objectives, in accordance with the provisions of the statutory guidance and the principles of our licensing policy, the application for the variation of a Premises Licence, was REFUSED.

In coming to a determination the Committee considered the following matters;

1.   The Committee noted the representations made by residents.

·         They live in flats which are 15-20 metres away from the beer garden. They overlook the garden and patrons can see into their homes.

·         30 patrons can be in the garden at any one time and this number of people will make noise that cannot be managed by staff.

·         The proposal to close the premises at 10pm would mean that children living in these flats would be unable to sleep particularly during the summer months.

·         Residents’ homes are very close to the premises but the garden cannot be sound proofed.

·         At the rear of the premises there are double doors. When music is playing, the noise that escapes when patrons open these doors, affects residents’ quality of life.

·         The garden was open to the public for two weeks in 2018. During this time residents were subjected to distressing abuse from patrons. They felt vulnerable in their own homes.

2.   The Committee noted the representation made by the applicant. The venue had been a music venue but is now more geared to food and drink. There is background music inside the premises and there were plans to create a pleasant outdoor area for patrons. The garden is close to the car park rather than the flats.

3.   The Committee also noted the representation that the premises is already in a suburban area. There are already natural sounds in the area including emergency sirens, aeroplanes, and people talking. If the application was granted, the sound from the garden would not be heard above these natural sounds.

4.   The applicant said that he has considered the events that took place when the garden was open and the abuse suffered by residents would not be repeated. He would ensure that staff police the area. He has also listened to advice from licensing officers; he has closed the garden and applied for a variation of his licence.

5.   The Committee agreed that the applicant had not addressed the concerns of the residents and agreed that granting the application would not promote the four licensing objectives.

4.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and introductions were made. She then invited Ms Hooper to introduce the application.

            Licensing Officer   

4.2      Ms Hooper said that members were being asked to consider the application for the variation of a premises licence for Dirty South P.H 162 Lee High Road SE13 5PR. She outlined the current licence and said that this application is for the change of layout and associated plan for the rear outside area of the premises with a pop up bar/fixed bar. All licensable activities on the current licence are to be permitted in all areas of the new plan. Representations have been received from 24 interested parties including one local councillor. There are concerns that the granting of the licence is likely to cause an increase in noise nuisance for local residents.

            Applicant

4.3      Mr Gough said that the application is to extend the licensing activaty to the North West of the site in the outside area and use it as a beer garden. This area has been chosen because it is light and it catches the sun for most of the day. There is an area at the front of the premises used by smokers but is a shady area. The area at the rear of the premises will be used during the day and early evening as an area where patrons can drink, eat food and converse. It will not be a noisy area; music will not be played outside. The application is for a licensed outside area until 10pm so that they can make the most of the daylight hours.

4.4      Mr Gough said that a few years ago, the premises operated as a live music venue but the focus of the business now will be on food. There will be some background music inside the premises and he would like to create a pleasant outside area for patrons.

4.5      Councillor Howard asked what time the outside area would close. Mr Gough said the garden would close at 10pm. Councillor Howard said that the garden will not be in sunlight at 10pm. Mr Gough said that the garden would only be open until 10pm in the height of the summer and food would be served outside. There will be a maximum of 30 patrons in the garden. Councillor Howard said that from the pictures, residents live very close to the garden area, and 30 people socialising in the area would have a detrimental effect on them. Mr Gough said that the premises is next to the car park not residents’ homes.

4.6      Councillor Howard said that the garden area could be open 7 days a week until 10pm in the good weather. This would be very intrusive for residents. Mr Gough said that patrons in the beer garden can see residents on their balconies and residents can see down to the garden. There is no intention to hold parties outside, it is more an area for eating and drinking.

4.7      Councillor Howard said that last summer unlicensed activities took place in the garden area and several unpleasant events took place. She asked Mr Gough how he would ensure that this would not happen again. Mr Gough said that there was an occasion when patrons were allowed in to the garden until late, but this would not happen again.

4.8      Councillor Howard asked about the previous use for the garden. Mr Gough said that about 20 years ago it was used as a storage space. In the last 12-13 years it has been used as a private garden with a summer house and an office.

4.9      An objector had submitted a video which showed how quiet the area is under normal conditions. This was shown to members of the Committee.

            Representation

4.10    Mr Lai said that he lives in Waterside Court and his flat faces the beer garden. When the beer garden opened to the public, it was impossible to contain noise nuisance because it is not possible to sound proof noise an open space. The applicant has shown a lack of consideration for residents and the measures he claims to have made to contain the noise have been ineffective.

4.11    Mr Lai said that he experienced unpleasant anti-social behaviour and abuse from a customer. Patrons shouted at him because they thought he was looking at their children. This shows how close the flats are to the beer garden. He said that he feels vulnerable and this has affected the enjoyment of his home. This bad behaviour also affected children who live in their block. Mr Lai said that the applicant claims that they will patrol the outside area but they cannot control the noise from people who have been drinking.

4.12    Mr Gough said that he did not know about this incident because he was not there at the time. He does not condone this behaviour and does not want this interaction between patrons and residents again. There will be talking in the garden, but the level of sound will be in the context of noise in the area and will not make any difference to the intermittent background noise in the area.

4.13    Mr Cox said that for the 6 week period that the beer garden was open, there were incredible levels of nuisance. This noise level increased over the ambient levels. There were low noises and sudden loud noises and the lights from the beer garden shone into the flats. The balcony of the flat on the first floor is at eye level to the garden and residents are at risk of crime. Mr Cox said that he does not have the option to leave his home and is opposed to the application. The garden could not be closer to the flats and if the application is granted it would have a detrimental impact on residents’ enjoyment of their homes.

4.14    Ms Chapple said that she lives in a Victorian house opposite Dirty South; her property does not have sound proofing. It is 15-20 metres away from the beer garden. Dirty South has double doors at the rear that open on to the garden. On page 61 of the agenda, it states that notices will be displayed in the garden, but noise will be difficult to police. When the garden was open to the public, a group of school teachers were noisy and were not respectful towards residents. A 10pm closure of the garden will not uphold the licensing objectives. On 19 July 2018, her children were very upset by the noise and screaming emanating from the premises. If the application is granted her children will not be able to sleep or play inside or outside of their home.

4.15    Mr Sepulveda agreed with members’ comments. He said that shouting from patrons can be heard in the top flat.

4.16    The Chair asked how long the beer garden was open in the summer. Ms Hooper said that the licensing team visited the premises following receipt of a few complaints from residents. The front of the premises was licensed but not the rear. Mr Gough accepted that he needed to apply for a full variation. The garden had been open for 6 weeks. The Chair asked whether licensing officers had witnessed statutory noise nuisance. Ms Hooper said that they had not.

4.17    Mr Bailey said that he has experience working in a public house and so he knows that local residents must not be affected by noise nuisance from the outside space of the premises. If the capacity of the outside place is 30, there will be a lot of noise and anti-social behaviour and it cannot be policed by staff. He said that there is an alleyway alongside the premises and this could become an area for crime and disorder. He does not support the application.

4.18    Councillor Mallory said that enforcement is a problem. The premises was known as the Rose of Lee and was a musical venue. He said that residents have outlined the problems that they have experienced with the beer garden and how it would affect their lives if the application was granted.

4.19    Councillor Mallory said that if the licence application for the beer garden is granted, it would need a roof and acoustic cover otherwise residents will suffer from noise nuisance. There are no plans to properly police the area and the risk of anti-social behaviour, so close to residents, is very high.

4.20    Mr Gough said that the alleyway to which residents refer, is not part of the area near to the garden, it is further down. Patrons leave the premises through the front door. He accepts that there could be anti-social behaviour but said that it is the responsibility of the staff to manage it. There will not be any amplified music outside or entertainment. He said that he has had a meeting with residents and he noticed that it was interrupted by the noise of sirens and aircrafts. The noise in the garden will not be adding to the noise in the area. Staff will control litter to ensure that there is no infestation of pests. Mr Gough questioned what ambient noise is and how the patrons at the Dirty South would add to this noise. People only talk and laugh in the garden.

4.21    The Chair asked whether the area at the front of the premises could be used for patrons to eat food. Mr Gough said that there are 3 large tables at the front of the property for patrons to smoke. It is a shady area, on the main road and is not a suitable area for eating.

4.22    Members of the Committee then withdrew to make their decision. When they           returned it was:

RESOLVED thatthe application, as applied for, be Refused.

4.23    Ms Hooper said that an appeal may be made against this decision to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of the decision letter which would be sent out within 5 days of the meeting.