Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2023 be confirmed and signed at the next meeting of this Committee.

None.

Bird in Hand - 35 Dartmouth Road, London, SE23 3HN

Lewisham LBC, Licensing Committee

8 August 2023

DECISION NOTICE

1.    Babal Silk (“the Applicant”) has applied to vary a premises licence for Bird in Hand - 35 Dartmouth Road, London, SE23 3HN (“the Premises”).

2.    The Premises is currently authorised for the following licensable activities:

Season Variation

New Year’s Eve alcohol sales may continue until the start of trading hours on New Year’s Day.

3.    The application proposes the following:

·         the change of the layout and associated plan of the premises on the Ground floor

·         extension of hours:for the following activities

Annex 2 conditions amendments

(a) Paragraph 3 “Toughened glass shall be used for draft beer and lager at all times the premises are open to the public” Amend to: “Toughened glass or similar, such as polycarbonate shall be used for draft beer and lager at all times the premises are open to the public”

(B) Paragraph 8 “Children under the age of 16 shall not be permitted to enter the premises after 19.00”. Amend to: “Children under the age of 16 shall not be permitted to enter the premises after 21.00”  

4.    Relevant representations have been received from seven local residents on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm.

5.    The Licensing Committee held a hearing on 8 August 2023 to consider the application.  A solicitor spoke on behalf of the Applicant and two colleagues attended the meeting. Five residents attended the meeting and addressed the Committee.

6.    The Applicant acknowledged that the premises had a checkered history and had previously been operated at arm’s length. The applicant purchased the freehold in the spring of 2023 and the premises had been open for a month. It was noted that the car park had been sold and the applicant did not have responsibility for this area.

7.    The Applicant intended to replicate the operation of the Royal Albert in New Cross which had been managed by the Applicant. It offered good gastro food and was a modern community pub.

8.    The Applicant noted the photographic evidence of alleged incidences submitted by objectors. but it was claimed that previous clientele had moved on. It was acknowledged that more work was required before the premises was able to run successfully. The proposed licence changes would enable the premises to modernise and to be run in a similar manner as their other 29 establishments in London. The extended hours. If granted, would ensure that their operating hours  ...  view the full decision text for item 3.

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 Safer Communities Officer to introduce the application.

            Introduction

3.2     Mr Obazee advised that this hearing was being held to determine the variation of a premises licence application submitted by Babel Silk Ltd in relation to Bird in Hand 35 Dartmouth Road, London, SE23 3HN. He outlined the application.                                                                         

3.3       The application had been advertised in accordance with regulations. The last date for receiving representations was 29 June 2023. During the 28-day consultation period, seven objections had been received from members of the public. Photographic evidence had been received and circulated to all parties. The representations had been received within the specified consultation period and were not considered to be vexatious or frivolous. Representations had been received from the Police and Licensing Authority but had been withdrawn following conditions that had been agreed with the applicant.

3.4      Mr Obazee then outlined the steps available to members, when making their decision, to promote the four licensing objectives.

Applicant  

3.5      Mr Thomas gave a brief history of Antic London which had been in the pub business for 25 years. The Head Office was in Forest Hill and staff knew the area well. They bought a property opposite the Bird in Hand and managed it as a successful public house from 2010. It closed in November 2021 due to the pandemic.

3.6       Mr Thomas was aware that the premises had a checkered history; run by a large chain it had previously been operated at arm’s length. Nefarious activity had taken place in the pub or around the pub, The applicant purchased the freehold in the spring of 2023 and the premises had been open for a month. It was noted that the car park had been sold and the applicant did not have responsibility for this area.

3.7      It was the intention of the applicant to manage the Bird in Hand so that it replicated a pub, the Royal Albert, in New Cross. The opening hours were similar; it was a gastro pub and it was an established community pub.

3.8      Mr Thomas said that photographic evidence of alleged incidences had been circulated by objectors before the meeting, but he claimed that previous clientele had moved on. He acknowledged that it would take time for the new clientele to be established but the new conditions would enable the premises to be modernised and create an establishment similar to the Royal Albert and all the other establishments that were managed in London. It would be a pub to be proud of.

 3.9     If granted, the extended hours would ensure that the operating hours were different to other pubs; patrons would not be leaving at the same time on Thursday – Saturday nights.

3.10    The applicant wanted to encourage families to enjoy their facilities. If football was being shown, boys of up to 16 years would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Royal George at 85 Tanner's Hill, London, SE8 4QD

Lewisham LBC, Licensing Committee

Application for variation to premises licence

DECISION NOTICE

Samuel Smith (Southern) (“the Applicant”) has submitted an application to vary the premises licence for the Royal George at 85 Tanner's Hill, London, SE8 4QD (“the Premises”).

1.    The Premises is currently authorised for the following licensable activities:

2.    The application proposes the following:

 ·Change the layout and associated plan of the premises on the Ground floor

. · Extension of hours for the following activities:

3.    There were five relevant representations in response to the application, received from members of the public.  Objections were received from the Police and Licensing Authority.

4.    The Licensing Committee held a hearing on 8 August 2023 to consider those representations.

5.    In making its decision, the Committee has considered all of the papers in the reports pack and the evidence and submissions presented by the parties at the hearing.  It has also taken into account the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Home Office’s statutory guidance.

6.    The Committee’s decision is to grant the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Police and Licensing Authority which are attached.  Its reasons are as follows:

·         The Committee noted that the applicant had agreed the conditions recommended by the Police and the licensing Authority.

·         00.30 was considered to be a reasonable time for the premises to close and was in line with this Council’s licensing policy.

·         The Committee were concerned about communication between the premises and residents. Particular note was made regarding a claim made by one of the applicant’s representatives that the problem regarding deliveries had been resolved. This claim was not shared by a resident.

·         The Committee also expressed concern that patrons were not brought inside the premises at closing hours. The premises did not have a dispersal policy and it was agreed that this should be added to the conditions on the licence.

·         Although the Committee had concerns about the application, they put weight on the fact that the conditions had been agreed and considered it appropriate to vary the licence as sought, subject to the conditions attached to this notice.

7.    There is a right of appeal against this decision.  Any appeal should be made to the magistrates’ court within 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified of this decision.

1. The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering  ...  view the full decision text for item 4.

4.1      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 Safer Communities Officer to introduce the application.

            Introduction

4.2    Mr Obazee said that this hearing was being held to determine the variation of a premises licence application made by Samuel Smith Ltd for Royal George at 85 Tanner’s Hill, London, SE8 4QD. He outlined the application.    

4.3       The application for the premises licence had been advertised in accordance with regulations. During the 28-day consultation period, the licensing authority received five objections, from members of the public. Further representations were received from the Police and Licensing Authority. Representations received were not considered vexatious or frivolous. Photographic evidence received from members of the public had been circulated to all parties. Proposed conditions had been drafted by the Police and Licensing Authority.

4.4      Mr Obazee then outlined the steps available to members, when making their decision, to promote the four licensing objectives. The Chair confirmed that the written submission, received before the meeting from the applicant, had been circulated to all parties.

            Application

4.5      Mr McCann addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He gave an historical background to the Royal George. The operator Sam Smith was unique in that he did not have any other brands or styles of operation. The traditional pubs had freeholds or long leaseholds and a licence had not been reviewed for any of his pubs. Sam Smith pubs did not have TV or music so patrons were able to have a conversation.

4.6      The application for the change of layout was important but not controversial. The internal layout was small and an additional room at the back of the premises would be used as an overflow for patrons. This would encourage more customers to sit inside the pub rather than outside.

4.7      Mr McCann said that the main concern of the objectors living opposite the premises was the extension of hours and the use of the premises at the front. There were no conditions on the licence, this was because no changes had been sought since 2003 when the Licensing Act came into force. If the application was granted, 27 conditions had been agreed and would be placed on the licence. He drew members’ attention to the condition that drinking time at the front of the premises had been reduced from 11.20pm to 10pm. This would be supervised by staff.

4.8      Mr McCann said that drinking was permitted outside on the front of premises. There had not been any representation from environmental health. Photographic evidence had been lodged with the licensing authority taken at closing time as patrons left the pub. There was no evidence of anti-social behaviour, people were not screaming or waving. Just small groups planning to go home. However, it was not known when these photographs were taken.

4.9      The local area was not quiet late at night. There were four railway lines  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.