Decisions

1.    Noted the services and activities funded by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) MyEnds Partnership Fund.

 

2.    Noted the total sum of £420,000 grant funding has been allocated to the Council for delivery of activities in hyper-local areas in the borough, as set out in the MOPAC MyEnds Partnership Fund grant agreement.

 

3.    Noted the award of grants in accordance with MyEnds Partnership Fund criteria as follows:

 

Service	Funding allocated 24/25	Funding allocated 25/26
Tramshed	£21,276.35	£21,276.35
Growing Against Violence	£3,420	£3,420
Charlton Athletic Community Trust	£18,561	£18,561
Syrus Consultancy	£40,000	£40,000
Her Centre	£45,413	£45,413
Mary Dolly	£5,823	£5,823
B Young Stars	£31,400	£31,400
Community Engagement/events	£11,694	£11,694
Seduced By Art	£25,000	£25,000
Bexley Ju Jitsu	£7,412.50	£7,412.50

 

4.    Noted the Director of Housing and Safer Communities has authority to agree one off grants up to £10k.  The Leader has authority to agree one off grants above £10k.

 

Noted the decision of Cabinet taken on 26 November 2024 and agreed to take no further action

Approved initiating public consultation on the revised Local Validation Requirements List as appended in draft at Appendix A of the report, for a six-week period from January 2025

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 as ‘Squeeze’; West End performers who were looking to host more intimate events (including people who had performed in ‘Bend it like Beckham’ and ‘Mamma Mia’). He said these were people who had a close connection to the Royal Borough of Greenwich and wanted to host events at the Premises. He said the Premises Licence was needed to do this.

 

He explained that other users of the Premises included dance and ballet schools, that faculty heads at Trinity College had contacted his company with a view to having wind percussion groups play and that a school had been able to hold a full assembly for the first time in seven years. He emphasised that as its name suggested, he wanted the Premises to be a Hall for the Borough.

 

He then explained about the actual use of the Premises. He said from Monday to Thursday he expected around 10 to 100 people to be using the Premises per day. Friday, Saturday and Sundays were more likely to be close to full capacity but it would only be rare for there to be multiple bookings on the same day.

 

He then went on to the second part of his submissions, addressing the objections made by residents. He said there had been trial events to see what did and did not work. He said he wanted to achieve harmony with residents and that he didn’t take on the Premises to be a nuisance. He wanted an open dialogue.

 

Regarding concerns about late night events, he said these wouldn’t be regular and in fact the application for later hours probably only needed to be Saturday – the later hours on other evenings wouldn’t impede his ability to bring the business on.

 

Regarding concerns about late night deliveries, he said the Eden Group primarily organised weddings and that furniture and inventory/staging for photoshoots were required. He said he had noted concerns about late night deliveries and would not allow deliveries beyond 11pm or midnight.

 

He then addressed vendors offloading after an event finished – he explained that a finish of 11pm for example, would mean that although guests left by then, the vendors wouldn’t be leaving at that same time. He said he would make better use of car parking space behind the Premises for vendors to use at the end of an evening.

 

In respect of waste removal and additional waste, he said he would introduce sweeping of litter around the streets and there would be additional waste bins at the entrance. He raised a concern of his own over residents’ bins potentially blocking fire exits. He said he was more than happy to make a bin store for the local residents but that currently people assumed the bins were associated to the Premises, when they were not.

 

In terms of noise pollution he said a substantial amount had been spent on trying to soundproof the building in December. They had tried to seal up every window and were in the process of studying the air ventilation to see if any noise was escaping that way. He pointed out that as the building was built in the 1930s there was only so much that could be done, but that there would be consistent work to try and enhance noise prevention.

 

Regarding road safety he accepted that at the outset the venue did not have adequate traffic control. He said he wasn’t going to pretend his company was perfect, but that they had learnt from their mistakes and that there were more parking wardens and barriers to control movement of vehicles to ensure they weren’t parking in the wrong place. He said moving forward there was sufficient staffing on site for large scale events.

 

In respect of crowd management he said he would ensure queues to get into the Premises didn’t take up the entire pavement and that crowd control barriers would be used so that there weren’t more than 25 to 50 patrons outside.

 

He addressed a specific event on 26 November. He said the nature of his business was they didn’t sell tickets directly to guests, at least not yet, and that they conducted risk assessments on each event and ultimately made a judgement call on whether to allow the Premises to be used.

 

In respect of 26 November he said provision had been made for 250 attendees at a wake, but that more people than anticipated attended. He accepted this did cause problems, for example with parking, and said that should never happen again.

 

In terms of one accusation of drug use and the sale of drugs, he accepted on one occasion some people had been using cannabis but said he had not witnessed the sale of drugs.

 

He said he was looking at making a dedicated smoking area which would be restricted to groups of 5 people rather than 30 to 40 people previously. He said since December this had not been an issue.

 

At this point the Chair followed up on what the Applicant had said about timings for licensable activities: he asked if based on what had been said the Applicant would be willing to change the hours for licensable activities on Sunday to Friday to end at 11pm and on Saturday to 1am the next morning. The Applicant said he would be very happy to agree to this.

 

Councillor Sullivan raised a concern about the Premises being turned into a night club – the Applicant said that his business had never been involved in night clubs. He used the example of a venue he had converted in Croydon that had a licence until 5am, but was now a wedding venue where the doors closed at midnight. He said he was a family man with young children and had no desire to be up until the early hours dealing with issues at a night club. He said the proposal was for a rich range of events and activities at the Premises, including for example film bookings.

 

Councillor Bird stated that she was pleased to see the Premises had been renovated and was being used as she had used it for many years for youth activities. She raised a concern about monitoring numbers at events, and what would happen if an event for 250 people actually ended up having several hundred more.

 

The Applicant said that the event on 26 November had been a real eye opener and that in future even if they thought an event would have 200 people, he would prepare for 600. He said he would require higher damage deposits and would ensure adequate staffing.

 

The Chair asked a question about travel to and from the Premises and whether the contracts between the Applicant and those hiring the venue would include encouragement on green travel and public transport.

 

The Applicant agreed that there was good public transport provision nearby, with the DLR and Greenwich mainline stations. He said he would encourage people to use those but that some people would always drive; he highlighted several streets close by the Premises which had free parking after 6pm and said as long as staff were able to direct people to those streets, then the less traffic there would be. He said he wanted to increase in-house programming and rely less on externally organised events.

 

The Chair then invited contributions from those opposed to the application.

 

Objections and concerns were raised about a number of issues. These included that there was an irony in what was supposed to be a community hall being used by people who lived outside of the area who were not part of the community. Another resident was concerned that although a lot of assurances had been given to the sub-committee, recent history suggested that events had not been managed well and that the assurances given couldn’t be enforced. In particular, around traffic, there was concern about enforcement of the measures talked about by the Applicant.

 

Comparisons were drawn between the proposed hours of the Premises and other venues on Greenwich High Road and that the Premises was in a much more residential area. The resident objected to the later hours in such a residential area and also discussed concerns about loading outside the front of the Premises, including one occasion where a truck had been left in the middle of the road, blocking access.

 

Another resident gave an example of one occasion where two guests to the Premises had thought his front door was an entrance to the Premises, and had banged on his door and refused to leave his door step even after he had explained it was a private property. The smoking area was raised as another area of concern given its proximity to some of the residential properties and that in general terms, there had been significant disruption to the lives of residents over the last three months. This would only get worse if the later hours and licensable activities were allowed.

 

Another resident suggested that although the initial consultation had emphasised the community use of the Premises, it was in fact been advertised online as being available for anyone to hire for up to 800 people. The resident expressed scepticism about being able to restrict smoking to just 5 or 6 people and how it would be possible to police that at boxing matches where people drank alcohol and got drunk. The point about access and traffic, including emergency vehicle access to the streets adjoining the Premises was also raised.

 

Other residents highlighted issues around noise, and that despite not even being direct neighbours noise from the Premises was audible, reverberating around residential properties. They agreed with points made about traffic, and why it was that the late evening licence was required at all for a community space.

 

The Applicant was then given an opportunity to respond to the points raised. He said he might have been misunderstood when it came to loading/unloading and that the intent was for most deliveries to be to the front of the Premises, with access to the rear via Peyton Place restricted to vendors.

 

He responded to concerns about non-community use of the Premises by explaining that financially, the Premises could not support local programming only – there had to be a balance where licensable activities were provided to make the venue financially viable. He explained that the building was very expensive to run and that he had to run the Premises on a different model to the dance company that had previously occupied it.

 

In terms of the smoking area and enforcing that, he said the licence would force him to have 50 patrons per security staff and that although that was achievable, it needed more resources which would come from licensable activities.

 

In respect of noise, he said he would welcome decibel readings and working with residents. He said he hadn’t taken on the Premises and invested family savings into it to disturb residents and that it would be counter intuitive to do so given it ruined any goodwill.

 

The Sub-Committee then retired to consider their decision.

 

DECISION

 

The Sub-Committee were mindful that the only representations they could consider under the Licensing Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing objectives:

i.              Prevention of Crime & Disorder

ii.            Prevention of Public Nuisance

iii.           Public Safety

iv.           Protection of Children from Harm.

 

Further, the Sub-Committee were aware of both the Statutory Guidance under the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee were particularly cognisant of Paragraph 11.7 in the Council Policy. Namely that the effect of the cumulative impact policy was that applications for new premises licences in a cumulative impact zone would be refused whenever relevant representations were received, unless the applicant could demonstrate why the grant would not add to the cumulative impact experienced.

 

The Sub-Committee had read the papers and listened carefully to the oral submissions of those attending, noting the various representations made for and against.

 

The Sub-Committee welcomed the fact that there had been significant investment into a building that had been sadly neglected for a number of years and understood the Applicant’s submission that a building of this type was expensive and difficult to maintain and manage.

 

The Sub-Committee were of the view that the Premises could provide a positive benefit to the night time economy, local business and the Borough more generally.

 

The Sub-Committee identified two repeated areas of concern from residents as being noise and traffic/parking. The Sub-Committee had had some concerns about whether the application might be an attempt to run a late-night club, but these were alleviated during the meeting.

 

In respect of traffic and parking, the Sub-Committee were very sympathetic to the concerns of residents and issues that they have experienced over recent months. The Sub-Committee’s view was that parking and traffic would always be difficult issues but that the main concern highlighted by the residents was with noise and the nuisance it caused to them.

 

The Sub-Committee were also concerned, from a safety perspective, about the maximum number of attendees at events and how those numbers could be controlled given the example they heard about of the event in November which appeared to have had many more attendees than was planned for.

 

The Sub-Committee did not feel that they had sufficient evidence before them, for example from the London Fire Brigade, concerning what the precise maximum safe occupancy level was to impose an explicit limit as an additional condition. However they did note that Condition 13 required monitoring of numbers present on the premises and refers to a ‘maximum safe capacity’ along with risk assessments relating to actual or expected levels of attendance.

 

The Sub-Committee’s view was that there must exist a ‘maximum safe capacity’ which can be verified by the Licensing Team and any risk assessments evaluated against this. If there is not currently a ‘maximum safe capacity’ approved for the Premises then it would be incumbent on the Applicant to work with the relevant authorities to obtain one. They felt that on balance, if this condition is adhered to, this would be an enforceable condition.

 

The Sub-Committee were grateful to the Applicant for agreeing to amend his application so that it was for shorter hours over the course of each week. However the Sub-Committee felt that this agreement did not go far enough to allay completely the issues raised by the residents around nuisance in particular.

 

The Sub-Committee’s view was that it would not be appropriate to allow licensable activities for the full range of hours applied for, even taking into account what the Applicant had agreed to during the meeting.

 

Being particularly aware that the Premises is in a Cumulative Impact Zone, the Sub-Committee was of the view that reduced opening hours/reduced hours for licensable activities would be the only way to avoid adding to the cumulative impact resulting from the grant of the application. In respect of hours the Sub-Committee therefore decided the following:

 

 

Supply of Alcohol (for consumption on the premises only);

-        Sunday to Friday from 11:00 hours until 23:00 hours;

-        Saturday from 11:00 hours until 00:30 hours the following morning.

 

Plays; Films; Indoor Sports; Boxing or Wrestling; Live Music; Recorded Music; Performance of Dance; (all indoors only):

-        Sunday to Friday from 11:00 hours until 23:00 hours;

-        Saturday from 11:00 hours until 00:30 hours the following morning.

 

Late Night Refreshment (indoors only):

-        Saturday from 23:00 hours until 01:00 hours the following morning.

 

Opening Hours

-        Sunday to Friday from 09:00 hours until 00:00 hours;

-        Saturday from 09:00 hours until 01:30 hours the following morning.

 

With respect to the conditions, while the Sub-Committee recognised that the Applicant has done significant work to soundproof the building, they were concerned by the repeated complaints by local residents of excessive noise.

 

The Sub-Committee considered whether an additional condition should be imposed beyond what had been proposed. They considered proposed condition 27 carefully:

 

(27)   Music shall not be permitted to be played outside the premises and any music played from within should be inaudible at the facade of nearby noise-sensitive premises (e.g. residential properties).

 

The Sub-Committee’s view was that this condition provided a strong protection against public nuisance caused by excessive noise. The Sub-Committee expect that going forward, residents who contact the Noise Team will be able to rely on this condition to ensure that they are not disturbed by music from the venue at any time of day. The Noise Team are also encouraged to proactively check that this condition is being adhered to in the coming months.

    

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of The Borough Hall, Royal Hill, London, SE10 8REbe GRANTED subject to the following conditions and for the timings set out above:

 

(1)     The Licence holder shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as approved by the Metropolitan Police. All public areas of the licensed premises, including all public entry and exit points and the street environment shall be covered enabling facial identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when a member of the public is on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Recordings shall be made available as soon as practicable upon the reasonable request of Police Officer, Police Community Safety Officer or authorised Local Authority Officer. In the event that the CCTV system is unable to record and an immediate repair is not possible, the premises licence holder shall contact the licensing authority or the police for advice on whether licensable activities may continue.

(2)     A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open to the public and must be able to retrieve recorded footage and show to a Police Officer, Police Community Safety Officer or authorised Local Authority Officer upon reasonable request.

(3)     A personal licence holder shall be on duty and present on the premises at all times when the premises are open to the public for the sale or supply of alcohol.

(4)     No drinks, whether alcoholic or otherwise, shall be served in glass containers at any time after 23:00 hours.

(5)     Reusable polycarbonate/plastic (or similar) drinks containers shall be used by all persons after 23:00 hours; all alcoholic and 'soft' drinks shall be decanted by premises staff into such drink containers at the point of sale.

(6)     An Incident Register shall be kept at the premises, and made available promptly on request to any Police Officer, Police Community Safety Officer or authorised Local Authority Officer. The Register shall record the following:

(a)      all crimes reported to the venue

(b)     removal of all individuals from the premises

(c)      any complaints received

(d)     any incidents of disorder

(e)     all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons

(f)      any faults in the CCTV system or searching equipment or scanning equipment

(g)      any refusal of the sale of alcohol • any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

(7)     Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and to leave the area quietly.

(8)     A direct contact telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open and shall also be displayed on the premises website (if applicable). This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

(9)     Food and non-intoxicating beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.

(10)   All external fire exit doors shall be fitted with sensor alarms and visible indicators to alert staff when the doors have been opened.

(11)   A written Security Policy shall be made available for inspection at all time on the premises. The Policy shall identify requirements such as:

(a) The minimum number of supervisors

(b) The displaying of name badges

(c) The carrying of proof of SIA registration

(d) The hours of operation and location of door staff

(e) Whether at least one female supervisor should be available

(f) Time arrived at and left the premises

(12)   SIA shall be deployed at events subject to Risk Assessment.

(13)   "Clickers" or other devices shall be used by staff to monitor the number of persons present on the premises where a risk assessment indicates that the expected or actual attendance is, or is likely to, exceed 50% of the premises' maximum safe capacity.

(14)   A written Drugs Policy that details how the Premises Licence holder will prevent customers or staff bringing illegal drugs into the premises and procedures for dealing with any drugs found either on customers or within the premises shall be implemented at the premises.

(15)   A currently qualified first aider shall be employed on the premises at all times that the premises are open to the public. The venue shall provide sufficient first aid facilities commensurate with the type of event and capacity of the premises.

(16)   A Register of Security Personnel employed on the premises shall be maintained in a legible format and made available to Police upon request. The register should be completed by the DPS, duty manager or nominated staff member at the commencement of work by each member of security staff and details recorded should include: Full name; SIA badge number; and time duties commenced and ceased. The security operative shall sign their name against these details.

(17)   At the commencement of work security personnel must ensure that they are recorded on the CCTV system and that a clear head and shoulders image showing their face clear of any hat, or other obstruction is recorded.

(18)   A written Dispersal Policy shall be in place and implemented at the premises to move customers from the premises and the immediate vicinity in such a way as to cause minimum disturbance or nuisance to neighbours. The Dispersal Policy shall be available to be inspected by any Police Officer, Police Community Support Officer or authorised Local Authority Officer upon reasonable request.

(19)   The premises licence holder shall maintain a Register of all employees, including relatives, working at the premises. The register shall be made available upon demand to a Police officer, an immigration officer, or an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority.

The Register of Employees shall record the following information for each employee:

(a)      Full name of employee;

(b)     A copy of the Passport photograph page or National Identity Card photograph;

(c)      Date employment commenced;

(d)     Date employment ended;

(e)     Eligibility to work in the UK by inspection of passport and originals of the right to work in the UK documents;

(f)      Evidence of the right to work in the UK;

(g)      Signature of the Premises Licence Holder or DPS to confirm the documents inspected and date of inspection;

(h)     Signature of employee to confirm documents inspected by the licence holder and date of inspection

(i)      The employee's residential address.

(20)   External doors and windows to the premises shall be kept closed whilst regulated entertainment is taking place, except for access & egress.

(21)   Patrons shall not be permitted to take any drinks or drinks containers outside of the premises at any time.

(22)   The Challenge 25/ Think 25 or contemporary equivalent proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises. All customers who appear under the age of 25 will be challenged to prove that they are over 18 when attempting to purchase alcohol. Acceptable forms of ID include a photo driving licence, passport, or home office approved identity card bearing the holographic 'PASS' mark. If the person seeking alcohol is unable to produce an acceptable form of identification, no sale or supply of alcohol shall be made to or for that person.

(23)   All staff shall be trained in the law about the sale of alcohol. Such training will include challenging every individual who appears to be under 25 years of age and to refuse service where individuals cannot produce acceptable means of identification, acceptable forms of ID and using the refusal register. Such training (including any refresher training) will be logged and provided not less than every twelve months. The training log shall be made available for inspection by Police and "authorised persons" immediately upon request.

(24)   A Refusals Log shall be kept at the premises, and made immediately available on request to the Police or an "authorised person". The refusals log is to be inspected on a monthly basis by the DPS and noted in the log; and a record made in the log of any actions that appear to be needed to protect young people from harm. The log must record all refused sales of alcohol and include the following:

(a)      the identity of the member of staff who refused the sale;

(b)     the date and time of the refusal;

(c)      the alcohol requested and reason for refusal; and

(d)     description of the person refused alcohol.

(25)   The following posters, or contemporary equivalent shall be displayed conspicuously on the premises in customer facing areas:

(a)      'Think 25' to advise potential purchasers that suitable proof of age will be required for all purchasers who appear to be under 25.

(b)     'It's a crime' intended to warn adults not to buy alcohol for those under 18 years-of-age.

(26)   External doors and windows to the premises shall be kept closed whilst regulated entertainment is taking place, except for access & egress.

(27)   Music shall not be permitted to be played outside the premises and any music played from within should be inaudible at the facade of nearby noise-sensitive premises (e.g. residential properties).

(28)   The DPS/Manager shall ensure that public-facing staff receive welfare training both annually and upon the commencement of their employment at the premises. This training may include the “Ask for Angela” (A4A) initiative and welfare and vulnerability engagement (WAVE). Records of the training will be maintained on-site and will be available for inspection by licensing officers, police, and relevant authorities. Additionally, the premises shall sign up to the Royal Greenwich Women’s Safety Charter, details of which can be found at: https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200202/community_safety/2023/sign_up_for_the_womens_safety_charter.

 

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The Applicant and any person who has made a relevant representation may appeal the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee by written notification to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of the decision notice and reasons.

 

 

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 should they suspect a customer was under 25 and trying to buy alcohol.

 

Ms Sherratt emphasised that this was very much a family business, run by the Applicant’s wife, son and daughter and that his wife and son both hold personal licences. They currently employ one member of staff part time but expected others would probably be employed from the local area in due course.

 

She said all members of staff would undergo remote training on the sale of alcohol that would be conducted before they could make sales of alcohol. She again emphasised the flawless track record of the Applicant and that there were a number of very robust conditions in place. She briefly addressed the Sub-Committee on the two conditions discussed with the Police and why those had rightly not been pursued by them.

 

Ms Sherratt concluded by addressing the petition directly, stating that it had been organised by the owner of a rival business who the Applicant had actually worked for, without issue, for ten years. She asked the Sub-Committee to give the petition its due weight.

 

In terms of other resident objections she said they were right to point out the neighbourhood was quiet and peaceful and that there were no problems – she said good retailers make things better, and that this was actually a case where an empty, unlit premises was being turned into one constantly manned and brightly lit up. The Premises in fact upheld the licensing objectives.

 

The Chair asked why such early hours were required when in his experience, local supermarkets didn’t start selling until later in the morning. Ms Sherratt responded that the reality was there might not be any sales in the morning at all, but by not allowing sales that might create problems, for example the need to cover up alcohol. She pointed out it was a matter for the Applicant whether he felt he could make any more money at this time or not, and regardless of what other businesses did, this case had to be dealt with on its own merits.

 

The two residents who attended then gave their views. They highlighted their longstanding links to the community. The large number of premises that sold alcohol in close proximity to the Premises was pointed out (5 out of 8) and that under the Corbett Estate regime, alcohol had originally been banned entirely from sale at three of those shops.

 

The grant of the application was objected to on the basis that the community was already well served with shops selling alcohol and allowing another would put in jeopardy the quite and peaceful nature of the area.

 

Concerns were also raised with traffic, in particular at the junction the Premises was situated at. The dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour of some motorists was highlighted, and the problems that an additional delivery van might cause. The safety of children crossing the road was also raised. Councillor Bird expressed her support for anxiety over road safety.

 

Ms Sherratt was given an opportunity to respond, where she pointed out that the Premises probably had far more stringent conditions then neighbouring businesses and that any kind of business, regardless of whether they sold alcohol or not, would be a magnet for customers wanting to park nearby. Any problems that might arise from that were the responsibility of police and traffic management. The Premises Licence decision should be dealt with separately from concerns about members of the public behaving poorly when it came to their driving.

 

The Sub-Committee then retired to consider their decision.

 

 

DECISION

 

The Sub-Committee were mindful that the only representations they could consider under the Licensing Act 2003 are those which are relevant to the licensing objectives:

i.              Prevention of Crime & Disorder

ii.            Prevention of Public Nuisance

iii.           Public Safety

iv.           Protection of Children from Harm.

 

Further, the Sub-Committee were aware of both the Statutory Guidance under the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

 

The Sub-Committee had read the papers and listened carefully to the oral submissions of those attending, noting the various representations made for and against.

 

Although the Sub-Committee were live to the fact that the Premises was one of what appeared to be a large number of similar businesses all within a very small area, which had licences to sell alcohol, they were aware that this was no basis on which to refuse an application. They were also of the view that any business operating out of the Premises, licensed or not, would attract customers who needed to park, and that concerns over road safety could not fairly be linked to the success or failure or the application for a Premises Licence.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s track record and renovation of the Premises. The Sub-Committee welcomed the fact he had brought back to life a previously unused commercial property.

 

The Sub-Committee did consider carefully whether the proposed hours should be amended to reflect the hours of other comparable licenced premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the hours were not in fact the same across the three shops identified and in any event objections to the application were not linked to the proposed hours of licensable activities.

 

The Sub-Committee did note the objections and concerns of residents, but on balance felt that the strict conditions imposed were appropriate to uphold the licensing objectives.

 

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously resolved that the Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Westmount Corner, 112 Westmount Road, Eltham, London, SE9 1UTbe GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

Supply of Alcohol (Off the premises) and opening hours of the premises:

-      Monday to Saturday from 7:00 hours until 23:00 hours;

-      Sunday from 8:00 hours until 22:00 hours.

 

1.    The Premises Licence Holder shall install and operate a CCTV system at the premises, capable of providing coverage of all entry points and areas to which customers have access in any lighting conditions.

2.    The CCTV system shall continuously record whilst the premises are open to members of the public and shall be capable of providing clear images and frontal identification of customers.

3.    All CCTV recordings shall be retained for a minimum of thirty-one (31) days and shall be correctly date- and time-stamped; sufficient data storage shall be available to facilitate this.

4.    CCTV recordings shall be made available within forty-eight (48) hours upon receipt of a request by the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003), and recordings provided in an easily downloadable format.

5.    A member of staff shall be present on the premises whilst they are open who is capable of operating the CCTV system and able to facilitate viewing of CCTV footage upon the demand by the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003).

6.    The Premises Licence Holder shall perform regular maintenance of the CCTV system in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines and timeframe as a minimum. All CCTV cameras shall be cleaned and clear of obstructions and signage, including displays and promotional materials.

7.    The premises shall perform a test of the CCTV every seven (7) days. This shall include, but not be limited to, confirmation of playback of 31-day old recordings. The testing of the system shall be recorded in a log with the time and date of the test, and name of the staff member completing it, and shall be made available to the Police and / or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003) upon request. The log shall also include the details of the regular maintenance requirement detailed in Condition 6.

8.    In the event of failure or faults with the CCTV which compromise its ability to record clear usable images, real-time playback, or provide recordings in an easily downloadable format, all licensable activity shall cease forthwith. Details of the system fault shall be recorded in writing and maintained for a minimum of twelve (12) months at the premises.

9.    An Incident and Refusals Record, kept in written form, shall be maintained at the premises and made available on request to the Police or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority (as defined by Section 13, Licensing Act 2003). The Incident and Refusals Record shall record:

 

a)    Any complaints received in connection with the licensable activity permitted at the premises. 

b)   Any refusal to sell alcohol at the premises, including the date and time of the refusal, why the sale was refused, and the name of the staff member refusing it.

c)    Any removal of individuals from the premises, including the date and time of the removal, why the individual was removed, and the name of the staff member removing the individual.

d)   Any incidents of crime, disorder, or nuisance at the premises.

e)   Any faults with the CCTV system.

f)     Any visit to the premises by a Responsible Authority in connection with the licensable activity permitted at the premises.

 

10.No high-strength beers, lagers, ciders, and spirit mixers with an ABV of 6.5% and above shall be stocked or sold at the premises, with the exception of imported, premium and craft beers with the written consent of Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing and Greenwich Police Licensing. 

11.All alcohol on display shall be in full view of the cashier / staff member on duty at all times and shall not be obscured by displays or shelving.

12.There shall be no self-service of spirits, save for spirit mixtures of less than 6.5% ABV. 

13.During the hours of operation of the premises, the Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected from the frontage of the premises to the kerbside (Eltham Park Gardens and Westmount Road), the premises licence holder, DPS or named individual shall ensure by way of regular daily checks that the area is kept clear of litter and similar detritus. A written record of the litter checks shall be maintained at the premises and signed by the premises licence holder, DPS or shop manager at the end of each day the premises is open to the public, to confirm the checks have taken place.

14.The premises shall discourage customers from gathering outside the premises and environs so as to reduce the potential for noise and anti-social behaviour with the prominent display of signage in the premises advising customers not to congregate outside.

15.All staff engaged in the sale of alcohol shall receive suitable training at the start of their employment, and thereafter refresher training every six (6) months, in relation to the proof of age “Challenge 25” scheme. The following forms of identification are acceptable: photo driving licence; passport; Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card; military ID; and any other locally or nationally approved form of identification.

16.Notices and posters shall be prominently displayed inside the premises stating that a “Challenge 25” policy is in force. The posters shall include “It’s A Crime!” or equivalent, to deter proxy sales on behalf of those under-18.

17.All staff shall be provided with recognised customer welfare and vulnerability training from an appropriately qualified trainer, details of which must be documented (e.g. “WAVE”, “Ask Angela”, and/or equivalent). The Premises Licence Holder and/or the Designated Premises Supervisor shall sign-up to the Royal Borough of Greenwich Women’s Charter or its equivalent, and display certification of this prominently at the premises. Such display shall include any “WAVE” etc. certification.

18.All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers and shall not be consumed on the premises and signage will be displayed to this effect.

19.A telephone number for the premises shall be displayed that is visible from the exterior of the building if contact needs to be made with the staff to deal with any issue that might arise from the licensable activity.

 

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The Applicant and any person who has made a relevant representation may appeal the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee by written notification to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of the decision notice and reasons.

 

 

 

To note the need to Re-Run the Process (including public consultation) to agree the prohibition of ice cream trading in the Borough 

1.            Noted the outcome of an appeal to  the Magistrates Court relating to  King William Walk being a prohibited street for itinerant ice cream trading. (judgment appended to the report at Appendix 1).

 

2.            Noted the court order, within the judgment at Appendix 1 of the report to re-run the statutory procedure to designate King William Walk as a prohibited street for itinerant ice cream trading. 

 

3.            Agreed commencement of statutory consultation pursuant to section 37 of the LLAA 1990 .

Fees and Charges 2025/26 – Inflation and Cost Recovery

1.            Agreed the proposed fees and charges for the financial year 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report in accordance with the Leader’s Scheme of Delegation.

 

2.            Noted that the charges will apply from 1^st April 2025 to 31^st March 2026 where possible.

 

Fees and Charges 2025/26 – Inflation and Cost Recovery

Agreed the proposed fees and charges for the financial year 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, in accordance with the Leader’s Scheme of Delegation.

Fees and Charges 2025/26 – Inflation and Cost Recovery

Agreed the proposed fees and charges with effect from 1^st April 2025 as detailed in Appendix A of the report