Council meetings

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Remote - Via Microsoft Teams - the public are welcome to observe via the Council's website at

Contact: Clare Weaser 


No. Item


Declarations of Interest




Exclusion of the Press and Public



In accordance with regulation 4 (2) (b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 and   under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and  3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.


3. Silks 177 – 181 Rushey Green Catford SE6 4BD


The following is a summary of the item considered in the closed part of the meeting:


Silks 177 – 181 Rushey Green Catford SE6 4BD


            RESOLVED that it was necessary for the premises licence for Silks 177 – 181 Rushey Green Catford SE6 4BD to remain suspended until a final hearing of the application for summary review.




Silks 177-181 Rushey Green SE6 4BD


Silks, 177-181 Rushey Green, Catford, SE6 4BD

Lewisham LBC, Licensing Committee

Application for summary review ­– interim steps decision




1.    The Metropolitan Police (“the Police”) have submitted an application for a summary review of the premises licence for Silks, 177-181 Rushey Green, Catford, SE6 4BD (“the Premises”) on the grounds that it is associated with serious crime, or serious disorder or both. 


2.    The premises licence is held by Walk Safe Security Services Ltd (“the PLH”).  The Designated Premises Supervisor (“DPS”) is Sharna Johnson.


3.    The Licensing Sub-Committee held a remote hearing using Microsoft Teams on 7 November 2022 to consider whether it was necessary to take interim steps pending the determination of the summary review.  The Sub-Committee decided to suspend the licence with immediate effect.


4.    On 8 November 2022, the PLH’s legal representative submitted representations against that interim step.  As a result, the Licensing Authority was required to arrange a hearing within 48 hours of receipt to consider those representations.


5.    A hearing before the Licensing Committee was arranged for 9am on 10 November 2022 and began shortly after 9am.  Prior to the beginning of the hearing, the Licensing Authority had not received any communication from the PLH or their legal representative indicating an intention to withdraw those representations.


6.    The PLH did not attend the hearing.  Their legal representative explained that they were stuck in traffic on the M25 on the way to his office and therefore he was seeking an adjournment.  The Licensing Committee considered that request but declined it, on the basis that the PLH could have attended the hearing remotely without any difficulty and that they must have been able to give instructions to their legal representative in order to make the representations.


7.    The PLH’s legal representative then stated that he would withdraw the representations and re-submit them subsequently.  The Committee was advised that, as the hearing had begun, and the representations had not been withdrawn before the hearing, the hearing needed to proceed and the Committee had to make a determination on interim steps.


8.    The PLH’s legal representative made submissions against the use of suspension on the basis that it was disproportionate, the incident on 30 October 2022 had been resolved within a few minutes and the Police had not adequately investigated the incident.  He also made the point that he had not seen the CCTV referred to in the Police’s application.


9.    The Police also made representations.  They described the incident and submitted that it justified an immediate suspension of the licence.


10.  The Committee’s decision is to continue the suspension of the licence.  Its reasons are as follows:


·         It shared the concerns of the Sub-Committee as set out in its decision dated 7 November 2022.  The premises licence had only recently been revoked and this incident occurred the following weekend.


·         The Committee was mindful that there are two sides to the story and was conscious that it had not heard and seen all of the evidence  ...  view the full decision text for item 8.


3.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the Licensing Committee. She introduced those present. She then invited Mr Lewin to introduce the application.




3.2     Mr Lewin said that members were being asked to make a decision on interim steps.


3.3      Following an application for a summary review of the Licence for Silks, a meeting of this Committee was held on 27 October 2022 and the decision of this hearing was to revoke the premises licence.


3.4      Police advised this authority that in the early hours of the morning on 30 October 2022, there was an incident at the premises. They made an application for a summary review on basis that the premises had been associated with serious crime and disorder. A meeting of this Committee was held on 7 November 2022 to consider this application. The decision was to suspend the licence as an interim step.


3.5      The Premises Licence Holder had made representation to appeal the interim steps. Mr Lewin advised that the decision made by this Committee would be a holding measure until a final hearing of the summary review application was held within the next three weeks




3.6      Mr Dadds asked for the meeting to be adjourned. The Chair asked for legal advice because her understanding was that a hearing needed to be held within 48 hours. Mr. Lewin advised that the rules state that a hearing must be held within 48 hours of receipt of representations against the interim steps. It was not clear whether this meant that the hearing needed to be concluded and a decision made within 48 hours.


3.7      Mr Dadds said that he could withdraw the representations and resubmit them later. However he preferred the hearing to be adjourned so that a new date could be arranged which would be suitable for all parties. The reason for his request was because he had been unable to meet with his client before this hearing. His client had been forced to drive to his office because there was a tube strike and had been held up in traffic due to protestors on the motorway. He needed his client to be in his office in order to take instruction.


3.8      The Chair asked Mr Lewin whether the absence of Mr Dadds’ client, warranted an adjournment of the meeting. Mr Lewin asked to speak to members in private. Mr Dadds and Mr Renno left the meeting. When they returned, the Chair advised that the hearing would not be adjourned. She said that Mr Dadds’ client had not attended for the previous three meetings and was surprised that his client had not joined the hearing remotely. Mr Dadds said that his client had been with him for the previous three hearings but had not joined the earlier hearing because it was considered that remote hearings were unlawful.


3.9      Mr Lewin advised that rules state that if the holder of the premises licence makes but does not withdraw their representation against interim steps, the authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.