Agenda item

The Sub-Committee is asked to determine whether to grant the application for a premises licence at 77-79 Mitchley Avenue, Croydon, CR2 9HN.

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered the Application for a Premises Licence at 77-79 Mitchley Avenue, Croydon, CR2 9HN and the representations received as contained in the report of the Corporate Director, Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery.

The Sub-Committee also considered the representations made by the Applicant and their representative during the hearing. The Sub-committee noted that whilst those making representations were not before the Sub-Committee, it had the benefit of their written representations and had regard to these in reaching its decision.

The Sub-Committee, having reference to the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council Licensing Policy, RESOLVED to GRANT the application as amended, subject to the conditions set out in the operating schedule and those set out in Appendix A2 to the report on the basis that the Sub-Committee were satisfied that it would be appropriate to promote the licensing objectives to do so. The Sub-Committee considered that the objective of the prevention of public nuisance was particularly relevant in relation to the consideration of the representations on the matter.

The reasons of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are situated on the A2022 in a parade of shops, comprising only two other premises with residential premises above and surrounding the premises on all sides with gardens of residential premises backing onto the rear of the premises. 
2. The Sub-Committee had regard to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy which provides that the Council will treat each case on its individual merits, however, in general, it will not grant permission for licensable activities beyond 2330 hours on Sundays to Thursdays and Midnight on Fridays and Saturdays in respect of public houses situated in areas having denser residential accommodation. The Council would expect good reasons to be given to support any application for extensions beyond these hours, including addressing possible disturbance to residents. The Sub-Committee were mindful that although this area was certainly one of denser residential accommodation, the proposed premises license was not for a public house but for a restaurant which sought on sales of alcohol, which sales would only be made with a table meal.
3. The Sub-Committee noted that following discussions with the Police and the Council’s Trading Standards team, the Applicant had amended their application to have the conditions set out at Appendix A2 to the report placed on their license if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application.
4. The Sub-Committee noted the representations that indicated there were proposals to offer drinking and dining in the rear courtyard of the premises as well as on the pavement. The Sub-Committee were clear that this was not the application before them for consideration and in addition, any use of the pavement would, unless it was private forecourt, be subject to application for use under a different licensing regime if the Applicant wished to make use of it in that way.
5. In respect of Prevention of Public Nuisance, the Sub-Committee noted the importance of focussing on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable, as is suggested by the Statutory Guidance.
6. The Sub-Committee were aware and had reference to the Statutory Guidance which provides that, beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual who engages in antisocial behaviour is accountable in their own right. This was particularly relevant in relation to the apparent existing issue expressed by the objectors of “genital exposure and public urination” on the private road behind the premises. The Sub-Committee were clear that even if this is an issue, this is not a matter within the control of the premises even where a license has been granted.
7. The Sub-Committee noted that the nature of the premises was proposed to be a fine dining restaurant which would only be serving alcohol with food and that alcohol sales would be ancillary to a table meal.
8. The Sub-Committee also noted that some of the matters raised in the representations were not matters which were within the remit of the Licensing Sub-Committee or Licensing Act– for example in relation to the change of use/appropriateness of use of the premises, which is a matter for planning and covenants, which are matters of private law.
9. The Sub-Committee considered whether it would be appropriate to impose conditions in order to address concerns raised in the representations. The Sub-committee took into account the provisions within the Statutory Guidance at paragraph 9.44 regarding the imposition of conditions and noted that determination of whether an action or step is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives requires an assessment of what action or step would be suitable to achieve that end. While this does not therefore require a licensing authority to decide that no lesser step will achieve the aim, the authority should aim to consider the potential burden that the condition would impose on the premises licence holder (such as the financial burden due to restrictions) as well as the potential benefit in terms of the promotion of the licensing objectives. The above referenced paragraph also suggests that the licensing authority should consider wider issues such as other conditions already in place to mitigate potential negative impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives and the track record of the business. In light of the above and given the representations received and conditions already proposed to form part of the license if granted, the Sub-Committee did not consider that it was appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to impose any additional conditions.
10. The Sub-Committee wished to thank all participants for the manner in which they engaged with and supported the hearing in providing information to allow the Sub-Committee’s consideration.