Agenda and decisions

RESOLVED:

The decision

The Licensing Sub-committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing on 6th February 2024 has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

·  The prevention of crime and disorder;

·  Public safety;

·  Prevention of public nuisance;

·  The protection of children from harm;

the application for a premises licence has been refused in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, and LP3 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard and carefully considered the  representations from the Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police Service (“the Police”) and Other Persons (local residents) believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the area.

The Sub-committee took into account that the Applicant had agreed conditions with the Environmental Protection Team and they withdrew their objection.

The Sub-committee took into consideration the written representations of 13 Other Persons (local residents) who all objected on similar grounds, to this application due the impact it would have on local residents as a result of anti-social behaviour and the noise nuisance late at night. 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the representations made by the local residents who attended the hearing and maintained their objection to the application.  The Sub-committee took into account the concerns of local residents about public nuisance and the impact of anti-social behaviour which they experienced. The Sub-committee felt the local residents made a compelling case.

The Sub-committee carefully considered the representations made by the Applicant’s legal representative, and they noted that these representations did not directly address or allay the concerns raised by the local residents, the Licensing Authority and the Police. 

The Sub-committee felt that the Applicant needed to take into consideration the impact the additional hours would have on the local residents that live close to the premises.

After carefully considering all the representations and evidence from the Applicant’s legal representative, the Licensing Authority, the Police and from local residents the Sub-committee felt that the Applicant’s legal representative had said nothing that gave them confidence about how the premises would operate to avoid increased cumulative impact if the premises licence was granted. The Sub-committee felt that the Applicant had not addressed their concerns relating to the impact the premises would have on local residents and the area.  Indeed the residents were able to point to examples of how the area had been negatively impacted previously, prior to the pandemic, when the premises were under different management and had similar late openings. 

The Sub-committee, recognising that this premises is surrounded by densely occupied residential buildings, felt that the licensing objectives would be undermined, and they took into consideration the representations from the Police and the Licensing Authority. The Sub-committee took into account that although there were 42 conditions proposed, many did not directly address the remaining concerns of the responsible authorities nor the residents, and both the Police and  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.