The General Purposes and Licensing Committee of Bromley Council was scheduled to meet on Thursday 4 June 2026. The meeting's agenda included discussions on appointments to outside bodies, the council's work programme, and the minutes of previous Licensing Sub-Committee meetings.

Outside Body Appointments

The committee was scheduled to consider nominations for representatives to serve on various outside bodies and partnerships. These appointments, mostly made annually, involve a range of organisations and partnerships, with some roles being specific to executive members or committee chairpersons, and others linked to particular wards. The report pack indicated that a draft schedule of nominations was to be updated and circulated. The report highlighted that making these appointments aligns with the council's priority to manage our resources well, providing value for money, and efficient and effective services for Bromley's residents. ¹

Work Programme and Matters Outstanding

The committee's work programme for the 2026/27 council year was presented for consideration. This report also covered matters outstanding from previous meetings. The General Purposes and Licensing Committee plays a role in various non-executive functions, including licensing, human resources, complaints, elections, and member appointments. Its terms of reference include electoral issues, making byelaws, staffing matters, open government, complaint procedures, member appointments, health and safety, and licensing matters. The report noted one outstanding matter from the 22 May 2025 meeting concerning the potential appointment of ex-councillors to the Bromley Town Twinning Association, with officers endeavouring to clarify this issue. The work programme outlined scheduled meetings for the year, with anticipated reports for each.

Licensing Sub-Committee Minutes

The committee was also scheduled to review the minutes from several Licensing Sub-Committee meetings held between January and April 2026. These minutes detailed decisions made regarding various licensing applications:

• Old Dunstonian House Club, Dunstan's Lane, Beckenham, BR3 3AF: The Licensing Sub-Committee was to consider an application for a new premises licence. Objections were raised by a local councillor and residents concerning potential public nuisance from music, vehicle movements, and patrons. The applicant, an educational charity, argued the premises assisted the community and that proposed conditions would mitigate concerns. The Sub-Committee was to determine the application, imposing specific conditions related to hours, alcohol sales, music, and operational policies.

• Ornithology Bars & Restaurants Ltd, 125 Queensway, Petts Wood, Orpington, BR5 1DG: An application for a new premises licence was to be determined. Ward Councillor Tony Owen objected, citing concerns about public nuisance from outdoor music and congregating customers, particularly given the residential accommodation above. Residents echoed these concerns, highlighting potential noise pollution and disruption. The applicant, with 20 years of experience, intended to operate a restaurant/wine bar serving cheese and charcuterie with alcohol. The Sub-Committee was to consider whether the intention to provide only cheese platters with alcohol would undermine licensing objectives and whether the applicant had demonstrated they would provide substantial table meals with alcohol.

• Pierluigi's, 86-90 High Street, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 1ED: The Metropolitan Police applied to review the premises licence. The police stated that repeated attempts to obtain CCTV footage, essential for an ongoing investigation, had been unsuccessful, constituting a breach of licence conditions. The committee was to draw adverse inferences from the refusal to provide evidence and the apparent operation beyond authorised hours. Members of the public also raised concerns about noise, dispersal of patrons, and lack of engagement. The Sub-Committee was to consider revoking the licence, citing persistent obstruction of lawful requests, lack of cooperation, and a pattern of non-compliance.

• Cleaves Express, Orpington, BR6 7HB: Residents objected to a new premises licence application for an off-licence, citing concerns about increased alcohol-related anti-social behaviour, loitering, late-night congregations, and noise in a residential street. They also raised concerns about parking and the impact on children. The applicant's consultant argued that decisions must be evidence-based and that the council retained enforcement powers. The Licensing Sub-Committee was to determine the application, subject to conditions including CCTV, a Challenge 25 policy, staff training, and an incident register.

• Mide Afro Mart, 109 Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, BR1 5AB: The committee was to determine an application for a new premises licence for the sale of alcohol off the premises. Objections from a resident cited concerns about noise, litter, loud behaviour, increased crime, and the visibility of alcohol to minors. The applicant did not attend but submitted representations through a licensing agent, stating they were an experienced licence holder with an unblemished compliance history and that no Responsible Authority objected. The Sub-Committee was to grant the application with conditions including CCTV, a Challenge 25 policy, staff training, and an incident register.

• Priory Lounge & Tapas Bar, 140 High Street, Orpington, Kent, BR6 0JS: Objections were raised by local residents and the Knoll Residents Association due to concerns about noise from late-night music, parking restrictions, and potential alcohol-related disorder. The Licensing Authority, Metropolitan Police, and Planning Authority also objected, citing concerns about public nuisance, crime and disorder, and unauthorised works. The applicant's agent proposed amendments, including removing live music and accepting certain conditions. The committee was to consider whether the applicant, in view of their criminal record and disregard for planning and company law, was a fit and proper person to operate such premises. The committee was to determine whether any application involving another individual connected to or influenced by the applicant would be supported, and whether the application was to be refused.