Agenda item

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 were different to their competitors and patrons would not be leaving at the same time. The Applicant wanted to encourage families to enjoy their facilities. If football was being shown, boys of up to 16 years would be able to stay and watch the game. Changes to the lower ground floor level would enable engaged frontage and some overview of the public passageway.

9.    Residents complained about lack of engagement from staff at the premises who did not respond to complaints from residents. They did not have any confidence in management particularly with enforcing refusal of entry at midnight. There were complaints about drug dealing, cars in the road turning around in forecourts, disturbance from noise from patrons and nefarious behaviour within the residents’ private estate., There was no precedent for such a late licence in the area.

10. The Committee noted that the Police and the Council’s Safer Communities Service had agreed conditions with the Applicant and had not submitted an objection. 

11. Having considered the written and oral evidence and representations made by the parties, the Committee has decided to agree the following:

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

     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”

   The following conditions be added to the licence.:

1. A minimum of 2x Security Officers, (which one (1) must be female) and are all employed the Premises Owners. Security must be on duty when the premises intends to remain open past 0100hrs. When opening beyond 0100hrs Security must start at 21:00hrs until 30 minutes after closing and when conducting licensable activities or any other advertised or private event.

2. A register of security personnel employed on the premises shall be maintained in a legible format and made available to police upon reasonable request. The register should be completed by the DPS/ duty manager/ nominated staff member at the commencement of work by each member of security staff and details recorded should include; full name, Security badge number or staff ref number, time of commencement and completion of duties. The security operative should then sign their name.

3. All persons entering or re-entering the premises beyond Midnight shall be searched by the security officer on duty and monitored by the premises CCTV system.

12. The Committee, however, did not agree to the application to amend the hours as sought by the applicant. The hours remain unchanged.

13. The reason for this decision was that although members appreciated the investment in the premises and conditions had been agreed, they did not accept the reason given for wanting an extension of hours for the sale of alcohol by retail. If the hours were extended, the premises would not be in keeping with neighbouring premises and would not help to create a modern community pub.

14.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.

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 able to stay and watch the game. Changes to the lower ground floor level would enable engaged frontage and some overview of the public passageway.

3.11    Mr Thomas said that the applicant wanted to draw a line under the past and was keen to ensure that the premises was managed successfully.

3.12    Councillor Warner asked about the public space behind the car park and whether residents believed that conditions recommended by the Police resolved some of the concerns they had. He also asked about the applicant’s engagement with the local community and how they had responded to issues raised by residents. Mr Thomas said that historically, there had been fly tipping at the side of the premises and inappropriate parking. If this application was granted, this area would be licensed as an external space, and it would be enclosed. A dedicated bin store would be secured and there would be an external terrace that would be controlled.

3.13    The applicant knew the area well and was aware of the problems, which were clear in the photographic evidence. It had been agreed with the licensing authority that CCTV would be installed in external areas so that if there was nefarious activity, recorded evidence would be available for the Police. If the licensing hours were extended on the lower level, there would be more control on how patrons used this area and the on-street parking would be removed. Mr Thomas had no doubt that the situation would improve with the new management of these premises. Security staff would be employed, there would be bag searches, perimeter searches on late nights and a lot more engagement with residents in an effort to protect their wellbeing.

3.14    Mr Thomas said that complaints had not been sent directly to the premises. Management always engaged if complaints were received, and then investigated these complaints. Attempts had been made to investigate who had been loitering outside the premises as shown in the photographic evidence and who had been fly tipping.

3.15    Councillor Warner asked how extending the hours would help to resolve some of the problems raised by objectors. Mr Thomas said that the application was for an extra hour each day on Thursday -Saturday. The local pubs all closed at the same time, and there was a mass exodus as patrons left these premises. Customers would not be allowed onto the premises after midnight, and it was considered helpful for patrons to be leaving at different times.

3.16    In response to a question from Councillor Brown, Mr Thomas confirmed that the applicant was the last owner of the Ravensbourne pub.

Objections

3.17    Five objectors addressed the Committee, and the following points were made:

·           Complaints had been made directly to the pub. The response to one complaint was that they could not move people off the veranda because they were ‘only drinking’.

·           In the past week, people were on the premises until late and there was drug dealing. Cars picking up patrons drove down the road and turned in residents’ forecourts which triggered security lights.

·           Noise prevented residents from opening their windows.

·           Drug dealers operated between the Hill and the Bird in Hand and then came down the road to sit in the residents’ private estate

·           Last week rotting food had been left outside. Glass was only removed from the floor outside after residents sent photographic evidence.

·           There was doubt, amongst residents, that patrons would be refused access after midnight because in the past, it had been claimed that there had not been enough staff to manage this. In addition, security guards claimed that they could not leave their post and could not come out of the pub to move patrons away from the premises.

·           The windows of the premises were thin, so the noise nuisance caused by the premises had a greater impact on residents’ quality of life.

·           The application to extend the hours on a Thursday night had been made to increase revenue. It did not respect the wellbeing of residents, some of whom needed to leave early for work on Friday.

·           There were no regulations for the terrace; who could use it, how many people were allowed in this area at one time, or what time it should be closed.

·           Although the investment from a professional landlord was welcomed, the extended hours would exacerbate the anti-social behaviour that residents had been experiencing.

·           The balcony overlooked residents’ homes and patrons could see into their homes which was particularly upsetting when young children were asleep. Drug dealing took place on this balcony and the noise patrons made disturbed residents.

·           Residents had been forced to ask noisy patrons, who were loitering outside their properties, to move on. They feared that there could be reprisals. Extending the licence would not help this situation.

·           There was no precedent in the local area for a licence as late as that being applied for.

3.18    Councillor Warner asked objectors if they were re-assured by the applicant having spoken to the Police about some of their concerns as well as mitigating conditions that could deal with these problems. An objector did not believe that this would alleviate problems, it just moved the problems down the hill, nearer to residents’ homes. Residents also had concerns that police would not be able to manage the problems in the area because they did not have enough resources. Extending the hours would add to these problems.

Conclusion

3.19    Mr Thomas said that the applicant was committed to installing a sound limiter in all the pubs they managed. External areas would not trade beyond 10pm and he apologised that a member of the public was on the balcony; the applicant would ensure that it was prevented in future. Windows and doors would be closed at 10pm. The premises had a terrible history; it was on a public road. There had been a dereliction of duty from management because they had not tried to engage with residents in the street to mitigate issues raised. However, it was in the interest of the applicant to ensure that drug dealing did not take place on the premises because they could lose their licence and was the reason why all the conditions suggested by the Police had been agreed. It was hoped that this pub would be of benefit to all the community and would be a well-managed pub unlike the management over the past 20 years. The Bird in the Hand would continue to receive financial investment to ensure that it was a successful business near to their Head Office in Forest Hill.

3.20    An objector wanted to know how the applicant intended to mitigate the problems caused by patrons on the terrace. People were on the terrace until 11pm.Staff said that they could not do anything because the patrons were drinking. This contradicted the claim made by the applicant that staff responded to complaints made by residents.

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