Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 28 April and 13 June 2022 be confirmed and signed.

None.

Application made by Merkur Slots UK Ltd for a Premises Licence under the Gambling Act 2005 forMerkur Slots, 95 Rushey Green, London, SE6 4AF, to confirm that the Committee made the determination shown below.

In the matter of the application for 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 a premises licence was GRANTED.

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

1.     The Committee noted the representation made by Councillor Walsh and two local residents. This authority is responsible for protecting children from harm. Children would be at risk from harm if the application was granted because the premises was next to an ice-cream parlour popular amongst young children. Patrons smoking outside the premises would be in the same area as the children queuing for ice-cream particularly in the summer.

2.     Although children could not see inside Merkur Slots, the games that could be played were advertised on line. They were colourful and would be attractive to children.

3. Members also noted that the position of the gambling establishment was not considered appropriate because there were a lot of gambling establishments in the area and the addiction service is a few hundred metres north of the site and the surrounding area is a deprived area. There are also a number of vulnerable residents in the area who have additional needs. Studies had shown that people at risk of harm from gambling were concentrated in areas of high deprivation and there was an economic burden related to gambling in this country.

4. The Committee noted the presentation made by the applicant. There had not been any objections from any responsible authority. The applicant had traded on a 24 hour licence for many years in Lewisham High Street without any problems.  Extensive uncontested evidence including detailed witness statements had been provided and a licence application had never been refused.

5. Members noted that the business claimed to be one of the largest gaming businesses on the high street, licensed by the gambling commission and its systems to promote the licensing objectives which were detailed and comprehensive. Staff were highly trained and well managed. The business was audited regularly.

6. Members were advised that children could not see into the premises and would not be allowed inside the premises. With regard to vulnerable people, there were systems in place which had been approved by the gambling commission.

7. Although those opposed to gaming shops wanted the application to be rejected on moral and ethical grounds, it was not an option open to members of the Committee under the Gambling Act.

8. Representation had not been received from any of the relevant authorities. It was agreed that by granting the application, the three licensing objectives would be upheld.

3.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the Licensing Committee. She introduced those present, and outlined the procedure to be followed for the meeting. She then invited the Senior Licensing Officer to introduce the application.

            Senior Licensing Officer 

3.2     The Senior Licensing Officer said that this hearing was in relation to a new premises licence application under the Gambling Act 2005 for Merkur Slots, 95 Rushey Green Catford SE6 4A. Three representations had been received on the grounds of the licensing objectives to prevent gambling from being a source of Crime & Disorder and to protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

3.3      The Senior Licensing Officer said that the applicant had offered a set of eight conditions that they believed would uphold the licensing objectives. He then outlined the powers available to members when making their decision.

            Applicant

3.4      Mr Philip Kolvin QC addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He made the following points:

• There had not been any objections from any responsible authority. The applicant had traded on a 24 hour licence for many years in Lewisham High Street. If there had been any problems with this business, Lewisham’s licensing team would be aware of it.
•  The applicant had provided extensive uncontested evidence including detailed witness statements. A licence application had never been refused, the applicant had never suffered a regulatory intervention in any of the premises, there had not been an objection from the local authority and there was detailed independent evidence based on covert visits to the applicant’s London premises.
• The business is one of the largest gaming businesses on the high street, licensed by the gambling commission. Its systems to promote the licensing objectives were detailed and comprehensive. Staff were highly trained and well managed. The business was regularly audited and engaged by independent mystery shoppers and test purchasers.
• The business had a first class record on crime and disorder which was due to strong systems and rules. Alcohol was not provided and this was one of the reasons why there was no loitering outside the premises. Children could not see into the premises and would not be allowed inside. With regard to vulnerable people, there were systems in place which had been approved by the gambling commission.
•  If the licence was granted, the business would be bound to the licence conditions and codes of practice, mandatory conditions imposed by government and conditions offered by the applicant following consultation with the Police.

3.5      Councillor Walsh said that the proposed business was located next to Kaspa’s desserts, which was popular amongst young people. He asked for more detail about how the applicant intended to mitigate the risk towards children. Mr Kolvin said that his client had businesses all over the country which were located next to many different premises, McDonalds for example, which attracted children but he had not experienced any difficulties involving children at the premises. This was because, unlike other gambling establishments, no one could see into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Application for a new premises licence at Fox and Firkin 15 Whitburn Road SE13 7UQ.

In the matter of this application for a new premises licence,the Committee has considered all the relevant representations made by all parties.

The Committee has made the following determination to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives in accordance with the provisions of the Secretary of State’s guidance and the principles of our licensing policy:

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 was AGREED, subject to the conditions attached to this letter. Not all proposed conditions were agreed.

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

1.    Members of the Committee noted the objection made by the Police.  P.C Butler had not received a response from the applicant regarding this application. Conditions had been proposed and because there had not been a response, he had now alternative but to make an objection to the application on behalf of the Police.

2.    Members noted that P.C Butler considered it imperative that at least one female member of the door staff must be employed to ensure that all patrons were frisked. If only male patrons were frisked, weapons could be smuggled in to the premises by female patrons. He reminded members that a member of staff at the premises had been bottled by a member of the public and so drinks should be dispensed in polycarbonate drinking vessels.

3.    Members of the Committee also noted that the Police and licensing team had received several noise complaints from neighbours. The Fox and Firkin was a live band venue active in a garden three times the original size accommodating 200 patrons. The web site of the venue, documented the garden activities well and showed how loud the bands were.

4     The Committee noted the presentation from a resident. They were unable to enjoy their garden since the premises became a live music venue 5/6 years ago. She had not noticed any of the changes purported to have been implemented by the applicant, and when she had asked staff to turn down the music she was told ‘no’.

5.    Members noted the presentation from the applicant. Management had been liaising with the licensing team on their application but had not received emails from the Police. They were committed to working with Police officers and agreed to copy P.C Butler in to any future correspondence with the licensing team. It had not been their intention to keep the Police out of any correspondence

6.    Members of the Committee also noted that generally management would be able to provide female door staff, however there were not many female members in the industry and it could be difficult, on occasions, to employ female members. Polycarbonate drinking vessels would be used for busy events, but on quiet occasions, a quality drink, could not be served in a polycarbonate  ...  view the full decision text for item 61.

4.1      The Senior Licensing Officer said that this hearing was in relation to a new premises licence application made by Firkin Brewery Ltd, for the premises at 15 Whitburn Road SE13 7UQ. He outlined the application.

4.2      Three representations had been received from interested persons on the grounds of the prevention of Public Nuisance, prevention of Crime and Disorder, and Public Safety. Conditions were put on the application by the applicant; they had been reworded to meet the Council’s model conditions and agreed by the applicant. The Police proposed extra conditions that they would like added to the licence, but these were not agreed by the applicant. A list of conditions that had been agreed and those that had not, had been circulated prior to the meeting. The Senior Licensing Officer then outlined the powers available to members when making their decision.

            Representation

4.3      Ms Watson addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  She addressed the objections received from the Police.

·      There was no record of P.C. Butler having sent the conditions. It could have been a mishap that they had not been received. Communication would not be ignored because it was important to the applicant that a premises licence was secured.

·      The applicant agreed the conditions pending a few minor changes for clarification as discussed with the licensing team. He would be happy to liaise this with P.C Butler on the changes.

4.4      Ms Watson then addressed the objections raised by the planning team.

4.5      The concerns of the neighbours on Whitburn Road were addressed, the applicant was keen to resolve any issues. She clarified that the application was being made by Firkin Brewery; it was a separate entity to the Fox and Firkin Pub but they shared team members and a director. Under the proposed licence plan, the brewery would share a garden area with the pub.

·      The Fox and Firkin Pub had tried to address noise issues. Letters had been delivered to local residents with details of senior management so that they could raise any issues.

·      A WhatsApp group had been set up for residents to join so that any concerns could be raised and resolved quickly.

·      The Fox and Firkin was a grass roots music pub on an inner London High Street in a densely populated area. They operated within all regulations but the service offered would produce sound.

·      Over the past year, in an effort to mitigate noise, acoustic treatment had been undertaken at the pub and in the garden. The decibel levels were not known so it was difficult to ascertain whether the noise constituted a nuisance. However, it was accepted that any unwelcome noise suffered by residents constituted a noise nuisance.           

4.6      The existence of a music establishment in an urban area was a nationwide issue. Ms Watson said that the Fox and Firkin was an important culture space in the borough and they were keen to work with neighbours to ensure that they continue to exist and provide an important cultural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.