Venue: Microsoft Office Teams virtual meeting
Contact: Clare Weaser
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 13 July 2021 be confirmed and signed.
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 subject to the following conditions:
1. Premises opening hours: a. 09:00 to midnight Sunday to Thursday; and b. 09:00 to 02:00 the following morning on Friday and Saturday.
2. The venue shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system at the premises which should cover, as a minimum: a. all entry and exit points to and from the premises enabling frontal identification of every person entering under any light conditions; b. the areas of the premises to which the public have access (excluding toilets); and c. gaming machines and the counter area; The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the venue is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of thirty one days with date and time visible. Subject to data protection legislative requirements, recordings shall be made available to the Police or an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority upon request.
3. There shall be an external camera at the premises which will provide live images to staff in the service counter area.
4. Notices indicating that CCTV is in use at the premises shall be placed at or near the entrance to the premises.
5. The licence holder shall ensure that the outside areas of the premises are monitored so as to ensure there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the highway.
6. An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or the Police. Details to include: a. all crimes reported to the venue b. all ejections of patrons c. any complaints received concerning crime and disorder d. any incidents of disorder e. all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons f. any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. g. any attempts by children and young persons to gain access to the premises to gamble h. any Think 25 Refusals.
7. A Think 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.
8. Prominent signage and notices advertising the Think 25 Policy will be displayed at the premises.
9. Third party testing on age restricted sales systems shall be carried out on the premises at least 3 times a year and the results shall be provided to the Licensing Authority upon request.
10. The licensee will ensure, through regular checks and intervention that customer’s children are not left unsupervised outside the premises.
11. A magnetic ... view the full decision text for item 14.
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 Crime and Enforcement and Regulation Manager to introduce the application.
3.2 Ms Spall said that members were being asked to consider an application for a bingo premises licence for Merkur Slots 40 Deptford High Street London SE8 4AF under the Gambling Act 2005. This application had been postponed from 24 June 2021 to allow time for full consideration of late documentation. She outlined the application and said that representations had been received from 15 interested parties on the grounds of all of the licensing objectives. These included an objector from Councillor Dacres, a ward councillor for New Cross.
3.3 Ms Spall then outlined the powers available to members when making their decision.
3.4 Mr Kolvin made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. He made the following points:
· Objections to this application had not been received from any responsible authorities.
· The evidence that the applicant upholds the licensing objectives was extensive and uncontested because:
Ø There were detailed statements of operations and compliance witnesses.
Ø The applicant had never had an application refused.
Ø There had not be any Regulation intervention in any of the 190 premises.
Ø It trades successfully under a 24 hour licence in Lewisham High Street with no conditions.
Ø The local authority had not made an objection to the application.
Covert visits had been made to over 14 London premises in relatively deprived areas.
3.5 Mr Kolvin said there was no loitering outside his client’s premises, Children could not see into the premises but because of the style of the buildings and the supervision, they would not be interested in going in. If they attempted to enter, they would be challenged. Vulnerable people were protected with advanced systems of player protection and his client continued to work with gambling charities to improve these systems.
3.6 Mr Kolvin said that if the application was granted, the applicant’s licence would be subjected to extensive legal obligations.
3.7 Mr Richardson addressed the Committee on behalf of the Deptford Society. He said that Deptford’s unique character derives from its mixed community of commercial and residential users and the Deptford Society supported this co-existence but they both had their individual needs. Deptford has high levels of social deprivation and the decision made by the Committee was vital to the future of the area.
3.8 Merkur were a highly professional company and well able to operate within the limits of gambling law. However, the Deptford Society ... view the full minutes text for item 14.
In the matter of this application for the variation of Premises Licence,the Committee has considered all the relevant representations made by all parties.
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 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 GRANTED as applied for.
In coming to a determination the Committee considered the following matters:
1 Members of the Committee noted the representations made by artists working in close proximity to the Jiffy Grocery. The neighbourhood had changed in recent years. There were more residential neighbours and there was a cultural quarter. The proposed application would affect a large number of people.
2. The Committee also noted claims that delivery riders did not stay inside Jiffy Grocery, preferring to stand outside close to the Acme building to socialise. The noise created disturbed artists working in Acme which had caused stress for some people. If the application was approved residents and businesses would be disturbed by food smells and ventilation fans all hours of the day and night.
3. The Committee considered the representations made by the Applicant’s agent. There would not be any changes to the inward delivery schedules, the only change would be that delivery riders would be able to supply grocery products through the night. Annex 2 condition would also be removed.
4. It was further noted that the applicant considered that the objectors’ concerns should not be addressed by licensing policy but the landlord or planning officers. The premises is not in the cumulative impact zone, the need for the variation did not have to be proved and there was a legal presumption to grant the application. The several conditions that already existed on the premises licence met the risks to the licensing objectives.
5. The Committee noted that no objections had been received from responsible authorities. In addition there had not been any objection from residents.
6. Members of the Committee agreed that the granting of the variation of the premises licence would ensure that the four licensing objectives were upheld.
4.1 The Chair welcomed all parties to the Licensing Committee. She then invited the Crime and Enforcement and Regulation Manager to introduce the application.
4.2 Ms Spall said that members were being asked to consider an application for a variation of a premises licence for Jiffy Grocery Units 23-25 Parkside Business Estate Rolt Street SE8 5JB. She outlined the application and said that representations had been received from ten interested parties on the grounds of public nuisance.
4.3 Ms Spall said that conditions had been agreed between the applicant and Police and the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation service to promote the licensing objectives. She outlined the powers available to members when making their decision
4.4 Mr Nickson, licensing agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that the application for a full variation of the premises licence was to amend the hours of operation, initially until midnight but with the potential in future, for a 24 hour operation for their grocery delivery service. There would not be any changes to the inward delivery schedules, the only change would be that delivery riders would be able to supply grocery products through the night.
4.5 Mr Nickson said that no objections had been received from responsible authorities. In addition there had not been any objections from residents. The application included the removal of condition 6 to enable the delivery riders to operate after 11pm.
4.6 Mr Nickson said that there were limits to that which the licensing process could achieve to overcome the concerns raised by the business occupants in acme studios. These concerns should be discussed with the landlord or the planning authority. Members were not being asked to review the licence, only the sale and supply of alcohol alongside groceries and hot food and drinks after 11pm. The premises was not in the cumulative impact zone, the need for the variation did not have to be proved and there was a legal presumption to grant the application The several conditions that already existed on the premises licence met the risks to the licensing objectives
4.7 Mark Rogers, Property Manager, then addressed the Committee on the background of the location of the premises. He said that they treat Rolt Street arches as a strategic location led by customer demand from Deptford Surrey Quays and Greenwich. All were accessible by bike. The unit was a good size for the business and the applicant had a good relationship with the landlord. There had been 3 deals with this landlord and Jiffy Grocery was the fourth. Since opening, nine people had been employed.
4.8 Councillor Brown asked for clarification regarding the transport used by delivery drivers. Mr Rogers said that the vast majority of deliveries would be by bicycles and E-Bikes. On occasions, motorised vehicles would be used, but these were being phased out.
4.9 Ms Deedman addressed the Committee. She said that she had been working for Acme studios for a number of years. Staff were used to ... view the full minutes text for item 15.
5.1 The Chair welcomed all parties to the Licensing Committee. She introduced those present and then invited the Crime Enforcement and Regulation Manager to introduce the application.
5.2 Ms Spall said that members were being asked to consider an application for a premises licence for Good Friend Chinese Takeaway 2a Douglas Way SE8 4RJ. She outlined the application and said that this was changed following representation from the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation service on the grounds of public nuisance. The amended application was read out to those present. Representations had been received from interested parties on the grounds of public nuisance, public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder.
5.3 Ms Spall said that conditions had not been agreed between the applicant, and the Police and Crime and Enforcement service. She outlined the powers available to members when making their decision.
5.4 Ms Hou addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. She said that the application had changed because the hospitality industry had been badly affected by Covid 19. Good Friend Takeaway had struggled particularly because it was a small business. Management decided to change the business operation model by widening their clientele to include customers from outside the local area. This included students from Greenwich College Goldsmiths University, and Lewisham College. They also hoped to expand their business with small birthday parties and after school events.
5.5 Ms Hou said that the takeaway would also meet a need from the Chinese community who may wish to meet other people with the same cultural background and who speak the same language. It was hoped that new clientele would bring in much needed revenue into the business.
5.6 Ms Hou said that she had read the objections from local residents. She said that Chinese people speak louder than people from other ethnic backgrounds and it could present as intimidating behaviour. The applicant and members of staff did not speak good English, therefore there could have been some mis-understanding and mis-communication between staff members and local residents in the past.
5.7 There had been claims regarding the sale of illegal tobacco and cigarettes at the premises. Ms Hou said that this was not true. Customers may have brought their own cigarettes and smoked outside the premises.
5.8 Vehicles in Douglas Way were not customers of Good Friend Takeaway. Most customers did not drive so any issues with parking could not be associated with the premises.
5.9 In conclusion, Ms Hou said that there had been some misunderstanding and they wanted to be open and honest and find a solution to the problems and for the business to survive with the new operating model.
5.10 Councillor Brown asked why the applicant had not agreed all the conditions recommended by the Police and Crime, Enforcement and Regulation Service. Ms Hou said that she had only heard about the conditions just before the hearing. There had been language barriers and Kevin Guo had been the interpreter but he ... view the full minutes text for item 16.
This application was withdrawn.