Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Sub-Committee.

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda. Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Resolved-

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies is noted.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2024 and 10 October 2024.

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided. Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes

Resolved –

That the Minutes of the meeting of Licensing Sub-Committee B held on

12 August 2024 and 10 October 2024 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

The Sub-Committee is required to consider an Objection Notice given by the Royal Borough of Greenwich Environmental Health Service

In reaching its decision, the Licensing Sub-Committee (“LSC”) considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made thereunder, and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions, the LSC 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 written representations, evidence, and oral submissions, the LSC resolved that the  3 applications be refused and Counter Notices be issued.

Basis of Decision

The Premises Licence holder did not attend the hearing nor was he represented, and the hearing proceeded in absence. The LSC were satisfied that the Licence holder had been informed of the hearing and had been provided with details of the online hearing and joining instructions. No messages had been received from the licence holder prior to the hearing regarding any difficulties with attending the hearing. 

The LSC received submissions from environmental health officers explaining attempts to engage with the licence holder regarding the noise and public nuisance caused and associated with the licenced premises. It became clear to the LSC that the Licence holder was refusing to acknowledge the noise and nuisance. The LSC heard evidence that the licence holder was aware of the service of the noise abatement notice and ignored and disregarded it, and officers again witnessed statutory noise nuisance on 8^th December 2024. The LSC heard that it became impossible to have a discussion with the licence holder, Bankole Jones, on 8^th December 20204, when he accused officers of being biased and was also abusive and swearing.   

The LSC gave significant weight to the written representations and oral evidence by environmental health officers. The LSC were further concerned at the extreme nature of the loud amplified music witnessed by officers from residential premises with floors and walls vibrating and how officers witnessed furniture vibrating and a chair “rolling” along the floor because of the loud amplified music and noise from the licensed premises.

The LSC were satisfied that the conditions attached to the premises licence were being breached and licensable activities taking place outside permitted hours. The LSC were further satisfied that the premises, on the basis of the evidence before them, were not operating as a restaurant and in breach of the premises licence, and significant noise and public nuisance was being caused from the premises.

The LSC resolved that Counter Notices be served and the 3 TENs applications stand as refused. 

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21 days.

But no appeal may be brought later than five working days before the day on which the event period specified in the temporary event notice begins.

In attendance:

Applicant:                             Jones Bankole

Making representation:       Precious Evwrujae (Community Protection Lead); Nick Dornan (Community Protection Officer)

The Chair welcomed all parties and ensured that introductions were made, all papers had been received and all parties were aware of their right to be represented.

The Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) considered an Objection Notice given by the Royal Borough of Greenwich Environmental Health Service relating to three Temporary Event Notice (hereinafter generally referred to as “TENs”) for the sale of alcohol, provision of regulated entertainment, and provision of late night refreshment submitted by the premises user, Mr Bankole Jones in respect of Calabash Restaurant and Bar, 1-2 Stockwell Street, London, SE10 9JN.

The Licensing Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report. He stated that the applicants three TEN applications seek to extend the permitted hours of the premises until 2am, for a number of dates over the festive period. He added that the current premises licence authorises licensable activities until 11pm.

The Licensing Officer indicated to the Licensing Sub-Committee that Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Environmental Health Service (Community Protection Team) has submitted a notice objecting to all three TENs, on grounds related to the prevention of public nuisance.

As the applicant was not present, an officer from Community Protection Team addressed the Licensing Sub-Committee. He indicated that on the 3 November they officers witnessed excessive noise emanating from the applicants premises and deemed is as a statutory nuisance. He added that they engaged the manager at the premises at that said who initially attempted to deny the noise allegation, though officers indicated they witnessed it from a premises close to the business.

The committee proceeded to reference another incident that occurred on the 6 December 2024. He indicated that on the said day in response to a complaint by the neighbours, officers again witness excessive loud music been played at the applicants premises. The officer included that on approach a different individual identified himself as the manager. He stated that on these incidents he believes the license holder was not present. The incident on the 6 December 2024 was also deemed as a statutory nuisance.

The officer highlighted to the Licensing Sub-Committee that a noise abatement notice was issued to the applicant on 8 December 2024 to which his colleague confirmed that the applicant has received the abatement notice. He added that abatement notice was also ignored as they received a complaint later in the day. On visiting the applicants premises the Officers witnessed another breach.

In response to question from the LSC confirmed that the incident mention occurred within a month and the surrounding residential properties had families in them.

The lead officer of the Community Protection Team addressed the Licensing Sub-Committee. He indicated that before an abatement notice is issued, they try to work with the license holder with the help of the licensing officer. This done to mitigate the complaints from the resident and support the license holder manage the impacts from his activities.

He stated upon receiving  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.