Agenda item

Budgens Ground and First Floor 1 Williamson House, 47 Pomeroy Street London SE14 5GA

 Lewisham LBC, Licensing Committee

Application for variation of premises licence

DECISION NOTICE

1.    Break Point Limited (“the Applicant”) has submitted an application for the grant of a new licence  in respect of Budgens Ground and First Floor 1 Williamson House, 47 Pomeroy Street London SE14 5GA. (“the Premises”).

2. The Applicant seeks authorisation for the following licensable activities and for the following time periods:

Supply of Alcohol for consumption OFF the premises

07:00 – 23:00 Monday

07:00 – 23:00 Tuesday

07:00 – 23:00 Wednesday

07:00 – 23:00 Thursday

07:00 – 23:00 Friday

07:00 – 23:00 Saturday

07:00 – 23:00 Sunday

Seasonal Variation:

Christmas Eve from 07:00 until 00:30

New Year’s Eve from 07:00 until 01:30

3. There were no objections from the relevant authorities. One representation was received from a local resident on the grounds of the prevention public nuisance.

4.  The Licensing Committee held a hearing on 26 July 2023 to consider the representation. The Committee heard from the Applicant, and from one member of the public who had made a written representation objecting to the application. He raised concerns engaging the licensing objective which related to the prevention of public nuisance. He asked for the business to close at 10pm instead of 11pm because it would cause disturbance and nuisance for all residents on Pomeroy Street.

5.  After careful consideration of all the evidence and submissions, the Committee decided to grant the application as applied for.

Reasons:

In making its decision, the Committee has taken into account all of the papers in the reports pack and the evidence and submissions presented. In particular, the Committee has had regard to the need to promote the four licensing objectives, the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2020-26 and to the Home Office’s statutory guidance.

·         The business was a family run business trading since 2004 with a portfolio of 5 convenience stores throughout central London. They also own and trade two pharmacies and employed 41 people in total. It was expected that 10 extra positions would be available for the local community if the application was granted.

·         The applicant is an extremely responsible operator and met his regulatory obligations. The existing businesses traded at similar times to the one proposed in Pomerory Street. There had not been any complaints of noise at any of these premises.

·         Extra conditions, suggested by the licensing authority, had been accepted by the applicant. All staff would be trained to uphold the Licensing Objectives and in complying with the conditions on the licence. There were other businesses within a half mile radius that traded until 11pm.

·         The objector said that the premises should close at 10pm because it was next to a park and a school. He did not want people to be attracted to this business to buy alcohol and sit in the park. This park had been closed for 5 years but he expected it to re-open.

6.   The Committee gave weight to the fact that no Responsible Authority had raised an objection and they ought to be guided by them and the evidence before them. They gave considerable weight to that fact that the applicant was an experienced businessman who had managed several businesses without any issues. They did not consider that 11pm was an unreasonable time to close, particularly since there were several other businesses in the area with the same closing time or later.

7.  It was noted that a detailed list of conditions had been agreed by the applicant before the meeting and there was Insufficient evidence provided by the Objector that would undermine the Licensing Objectives.

8.    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.

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 a premises licence application made by Beakpoint Ltd for Budgens.Ground and First Floor 1 Williamson House, 47 Pomeroy Street SE14 5GA. 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 one objection, from a member of the public. The representation was received within the specified consultation period and was not considered vexatious or frivolous. Representations had not been received from any responsible authorities and conditions had been agreed by the Police, Licensing Authority and the applicant.

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

            Application

4.5      Mr Packard addressed the Committee. He said that Breakpoint Ltd was a family run business trading since 2004. They had a portfolio of 5 convenience stores in Central London and one in Dulwich. The applicant’s son was a pharmacist and managed two shops in Hertfordshire. The company employed 41 staff. If this application was granted, a further 10 people would be employed from the local community.

4.6      The applicant was a responsible operator and met his regulatory obligations. The applicant had worked with Post Office Counters Ltd and now Budgens. He understood the importance of brand protection and being compliant with its regulatory obligations. Mr Packard outlined the trading hours of the businesses, which included a 24 hour licence, and advised members that there had not be any noise or public nuisance at any of these premises.

4.7      Mr Packard said that the proposed business would be a mini supermarket trading under the Budgen national brand selling fresh and ambient goods along with alcohol and tobacco. All staff would be trained in upholding the licensing objectives.

4.8      There had been one objection regarding opening hours, not the sale of alcohol. The objector wanted the shop to close at 10pm not 11pm, but this would affect the sale of alcohol. It would also affect staff because the whole shop would have to close at 10pm. There were a number of businesses in the area that traded until 11pm which would suggest that potential noise and nuisance was managed through the conditions on the licence. He named several businesses within close proximity of the premises with late night licences; one closed at 1am.

            Summary

4.9      In conclusion, Mr Packard said that the applicant ran a family business, he had extensive experience, recognised his responsibility to local residents and upheld the four licensing objectives.

            Objection

4.10    Mr Burrow said that he lived on Pomeroy Street., 47 Pomerory Street was an empty unit and he was pleased that it would be occupied. His concern was related to the sale of alcohol. Unlike the other premises discussed, this was an isolated unit. It was not located in a high street where there was extra foot fall. It was situated next to a park, a school and there were people with vulnerabilities in the area. He did not want the premises to be somewhere people went to buy alcohol and then sat drinking in the adjacent park. Although the park had be boarded up, he expected it to open one day.

4.11    Councillor Warner asked for Mr Burrow his thoughts on the conditions that had been agreed by the applicant. Budgen was a particular brand of corner shop and he asked if this helped with his concerns about the application. Mr Burrow said that there were restrictions which were good when a problem arose. Some of the conditions were reactive; helping the Police if they were able to attend the premises when there were problems. He referred to street drinkers and said that he did not know whether they bought single cans of beer. The conditions did not convince him to withdraw his objection.

4.12    In response to a question from Councillor Warner about whether reducing the opening hours by one hour would alleviate his concerns, Mr Burrow confirmed that this was a good compromise. He was aware that a small number of local businesses closed at 11pm but they were either not next to a park or they were on a busy high street.

            Conclusion

4.13    Mr Pickard said that his client had accepted additional conditions suggested by the licensing authority and he would strive to adhere to those conditions to uphold the licensing objectives,

4.14    Mr Burrow did not wish to sum up.

4.15    The Chair said that she was satisfied members of the Committee had read and heard all the information required to make a decision. All members confirmed their attendance throughout the meeting.

4.16    The Chair said that a decision letter would be sent out within 5 working days. She thanked all parties for their attendance, and they left the meeting.