Greenwich Council

Decision details

Up the Creek, 302 Creek Road, Greenwich, SE10 9SW

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee A

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decision:

In reaching its decision the Sub Committee considered the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions the Sub Committee did so with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

Having considered all the evidence put before it the Sub-Committee decided to grant the variation to the Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the

 

Up the Creek, 302 Creek Road, London, SE10 9SW

 

as follows:

 

That the plans of the premises shall be amended to -

(a) increase the area in which the supply of alcohol (for consumption on the premises) may take place, to include the outdoor front forecourt of the premises; and

(b) provide 5 tables and 20 chairs in this area.

 

The variation is granted subject to the conditions as are consistent with the Operating Schedule and the conditions volunteered by the applicant as set out as follows:

 

(1)         The forecourt area outside the front of the premises may be made available for use by patrons to sit and consume food and drink (including alcohol) between 11:00 hours and 21:00 hours, only.

 

(2)         Whilst the front forecourt area is available for use by patrons, for the consumption of food and drink, a dedicated member of staff shall monitor and maintain the forecourt area to ensure that:

(a)  the area is kept in a clean, tidy, and safe condition;

(b) drink containers are regularly cleared;

(c)  patrons keep noise to a minimum.

 

(3)         No open vessels, bottles or other type of container will be allowed outside of the premises, other than those of customers within the front forecourt, during permitted hours. (This will replace existing condition 6, of Annex 2).

 

(4)         A CCTV system shall be operational at the premises that will cover all areas where licensable activities can take place (inside and out). The system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and at all times when customers remain on the premises. (This will replace existing condition 12, of Annex 2).

 

(5)         Anyone leaving the premises to smoke shall not be permitted to take any drinks with them outside of the premises, unless they are to be within the front forecourt, during permitted hours (This will replace existing condition 15, of Annex 2).

 

The Sub-Committee also agreed the following additional condition(s):

 

·        Whilst the front forecourt area is in use, there must be a suitable (removable) barrier defining the front curtilage and the licensed premises.

·        In the front forecourt area, only drinks containers and bottles made from polycarbonate, plastic, or another collapsible material, shall be used during the sale, supply or consumption of drinks, whether alcoholic or not, to customers.

 

The variation is granted subject to the Mandatory conditions for sale of alcohol as set out in the Licensing Act 2003 as amended by the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010 and Order 2014.

 

The Sub Committee’s decision was based on issues raised concerning the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, and the prevention of public nuisance.

 

In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee heard from the applicant who in addition to his written representations confirmed that he was in consultation with the planning department about the barrier and what would be acceptable but that his expectation was that the barriers would be bolted into the ground. In response to a question by the Licensing Sub-Committee in connection with whether the applicant had considered allowing smokers to smoke at the back of the licensed premises, he said that the concentration of residential properties in that area would make it unworkable. The applicant told the Licensing Sub-Committee that currently bottles and glasses were not allowed outside the licensed premises and that it was proposed that only high strength glasses and the occasional wine (glass) bottle would be allowed in the forecourt area. He re-iterated that there would be a dedicated member of staff to monitor and maintain the forecourt area.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the written representations from a local resident (resident A) who was objecting to the application on the public safety, prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives. She stated that her property was close to the licensed premises and she experienced  loud noise in the late hours which included screaming, shouting and smashing of glasses and broken bottles and that the grant of the variation application would ‘exacerbate’ the problem. The local resident did not attend the meeting. The applicant said in response to resident A’s objection that resident A was making a general observation that the area was noisy and that their application was for the use of the forecourt until 9pm.

 

The Sub-Committee also took account of the written representation of another local resident (resident B) who expressed a ‘strong support’ for the application on all four licensing objectives. He stated that he had four children attending local schools and in his view the application posed no or little risk to children. In fact, he took his older child to attend live performances to foster (in his child) an understanding, tolerance and diversity which were ‘lessons taken away from the performers’ at the licensed premises. He also stated that in his experience, few children or families walk along the pavement outside the licensed premises preferring to use the ‘other side of the road such as Bardsley Lane’. He said that the security staff at the licensed premises were polite and ‘effective at dealing with rowdiness’ and he had no doubt that the security staff had the capability of dealing with any issues arising in the daytime. The Sub-Committee placed weight on this representation. Resident B also did not attend the meeting.

 

In considering the application, the Sub-Committee noted that the premises was in the cumulative impact zone and were therefore mindful of paragraph 10 of the Royal Borough’s Licensing Policy which states that the effect of the cumulative impact is that applications will be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate why the variation will not add to the cumulative impact experienced. The Sub-Committee observed that there were four other licensed premises within the immediate vicinity, one of which (the Gate Clock pub) used an outdoor area that had no attached restrictions. The Sub-Committee noted that whilst there had been sporadic noise complaints as set out at paragraph 5.4 of the Agenda, these had been satisfactorily dealt with. In any event, the Licensing Sub-Committee were satisfied that the risk of issues of noise relating to “screaming and shouting” was minimal, on account of the volunteered condition that this area will be monitored by staff, and also in light of the terminal hour of 9pm for this area. With regards to potential noise from “smashing glasses”, the Sub-Committee noted from the existing conditions that the premises did not routinely use glass, however did decide to impose a further condition on the licence to reinforce this existing policy, to include the outdoor area.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that that the Responsible Authorities had made no representations.

 

In reaching their decision, the Sub Committee considered all the written and oral representations of the applicant and both local residents and was mindful to consider the application on its own merits. The Sub- Committee determined to grant the variation application in its current form and to impose two additional conditions, namely, the putting up of suitable barriers between the curtilage of the forecourt and the licensed premises and the use of toughened glass and bottles in the forecourt area during permitted hours as this would appropriately mitigate any potential cumulative impact and promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety licensing objectives.   

 

If the applicant or those making representations are aggrieved by the Council’s decision, they have the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court.  Such an appeal must be submitted to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date from when the appeal period is deemed to have started, which will be stated in the cover email or letter to the Notice of Decision.

 

 

Report author: Christopher Devine

Publication date: 07/06/2017

Date of decision: 06/06/2017

Decided at meeting: 06/06/2017 - Licensing Sub-Committee A

Accompanying Documents: