Agenda and decisions

To receive apologies from Members of the Sub-Committee.

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

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.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 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

Application for a Premises Licence

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UT

NOTE: The application was originally made under the name Eltham Food & Wine but as there is already another premises with that same name, the application is now made under the name ‘Westmount Corner’.

MEETING

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UT (“The Premises”). The application is to enable the supply of alcohol between 7am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10pm on Sundays.

At the outset of the meeting, Councillor Bird declared an interest, namely that the application related to a premises within her ward.

The application attracted a number of representations against it. Two were from individual residents who attended, while a third was a petition. The objections covered all four of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Gemma Devine (Licensing Officer), who set out the application as per the Licensing Sub-Committee Report. She also explained that two conditions proposed by the police that had originally been agreed by Rasu Sabesan (“the Applicant”) were reviewed by the police after he instructed a representative, Gill Sherratt, to act on his behalf. Following representations by her, the police agreed they would not seek the inclusion of the two conditions on the licence.

The Applicant was then given an opportunity to set out the reasons for his application and Ms Sherratt spoke on his behalf.

She stated that the proposed hours were nothing unusual for businesses in the area, and that the Applicant had extensive experience, some twenty years, in similar businesses. This included ten years at a Londis in Deptford and around ten years at the Londis a few doors down from the Premises, where he had managed the business for Ms Sapna Patel. She said there had never been any problems at either shop. She explained that Ms Patel was the organiser of the petition that had been submitted.

Ms Sherratt said that the number of shops selling alcohol was not a relevant consideration for the Sub-Committee, and that if there was excessive competition, this would sort itself out commercially. She explained that in any event the Applicant felt he could offer something different. He would be applying to install a cash machine, which otherwise would be 15 minute walk away for local residents.

She pointed out that the Premises had been derelict for around ten years, and that the Applicant had put around £60,000 of his own savings bringing it back to life. She highlighted that this was not in a Cumulative Impact Zone nor covered by any Public Safety Protection Order.

She addressed concerns about traffic by saying the Applicant had a delivery bay where he could park at the side of the Premises. She explained that there was brand new, modern CCTV and that the till had an automatic prompt for staff  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.

Application for a Premises Licence

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of The Borough Hall, Royal Hill, London, SE10 8RE

MEETING

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of The Borough Hall, Royal Hill, London, SE10 8RE (“The Premises”). The application is to enable the provision of alcohol, plays, films, indoor sports, boxing or wrestling, live music, recorded music, performance of dance, late night refreshment of hot food and drink at various times.

The application attracted a number of representations against it. These were from individual residents. The representations were broadly concerned with the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder, although concerns were also raised in terms of public safety.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Chris Devine (Licensing Officer), who set out the application as per the Licensing Sub-Committee Report. In addition to the conditions put forward in the application, the Metropolitan Police Service had sought one further condition which Mr Devine said had been agreed by Mr Philemon Adeleke, Director of the Eden Group Operations Limited (“the Applicant”) the day before the hearing.

The Applicant was then given an opportunity to set out the reasons for his application. He split his submissions into two parts; the application itself and his responses to the written objections made by residents.

He explained that his company had gone through a period of consultation before taking on the Premises, speaking to police, the licensing team and ward councillors before deciding whether to proceed with refurbishment and investment in the building. He said that he liked the additional condition requested by the Police (about staff receiving training on the “Ask for Angela” and other welfare initiatives).

He said that there hadn’t been any objection from the licensing team and that work had been done around fire escapes and windows to prevent noise leakage.

He explained that there had been a lot of damage to the property when his company had taken it over, that it was a listed building and they had spent a lot of time, effort and money in restoring it. He noted that when his company took it over, there were a number of needles, evidence of drug use and squatters. He said the clean-up took a few months and it required a lot of work to bring back nearly 40,000 square feet of space to commercial use.

He explained about steps taken to engage with the local community, including holding an event hosted by him and his wife where local residents were met in the minor hall of the Premises. He said he felt the dialogue was good and that he provided his mobile phone number so there could be direct communication with him to rectify any issues that arose.

Since plans for the space were published, he had noted substantial demand for it, including interest from areas he hadn’t anticipated. These included local bands who now had international reach, such  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.