The Licensing Sub-Committee considered three applications for premises licences. Decisions were made regarding The Empire Lounge and London Bridge Local, while the application for Bobby's Bar was conciliated prior to the meeting.

The Empire Lounge, 777 Old Kent Road, London SE15 1NZ

The sub-committee granted a premises licence for The Empire Lounge, located at 777 Old Kent Road, London SE15 1NZ. The licence permits recorded music, late night refreshment, and the sale of alcohol for both on and off-premises consumption. The permitted hours for recorded music and alcohol sales are from 11:00 to 02:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, and until 00:00 from Sunday to Thursday. Opening hours will extend to 02:30 on Fridays and Saturdays, and 00:30 from Sunday to Thursday. Non-standard timings are permitted for specific holidays, allowing an additional hour of operation.

The decision to grant the licence was made after considering representations from the Metropolitan Police Service, the Environmental Protection Team (EPT), and the Licensing Authority, as well as objections from three other persons. Concerns were raised regarding the proposed late hours, particularly in a residential area, and the potential for increased anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. The EPT highlighted a history of complaints and breaches of existing licence conditions.

However, the applicant's representative argued that the premises was not in a cumulative impact area and that the proposed control measures, including CCTV, staff training, and a dispersal policy, would be sufficient. The applicant also agreed to amended hours, limiting the extended hours to Fridays and Saturdays only. The sub-committee was satisfied that the conditions, as amended and agreed upon, would address the concerns raised and granted the licence.

Bobby's Bar, 124-126 Rye Lane, London SE15 4RZ

The application for a premises licence for Bobby's Bar, located at 124-126 Rye Lane, London SE15 4RZ, was conciliated prior to the meeting. Trading Standards, initially making representations regarding the protection of children from harm, withdrew their objection after the applicant agreed to incorporate four specific conditions into the operating schedule. These conditions relate to the implementation of a 'Challenge 25' age verification policy, staff training on this policy, prominent display of signage, and the maintenance of a register for refused alcohol sales. The Metropolitan Police Service and the Environmental Protection Team (EPT) also made representations concerning the proposed hours and the premises' location within the Peckham cumulative impact area. The sub-committee was to be apprised of any further conciliation at the hearing.

London Bridge Local, 85-87 Borough High Street, London SE1 1NH

The sub-committee refused the application for a premises licence for London Bridge Local, located at 85-87 Borough High Street, London SE1 1NH. The application sought to sell alcohol for off-premises consumption from 10:00 to 00:00 daily, with extended hours on New Year's Eve. The premises is described as a small convenience store.

The refusal was primarily based on the premises' location within the Borough and Bankside cumulative impact area (CIA). Licensing, as a responsible authority, argued that the area is already saturated with licensed premises, particularly off-licences, and that granting this application would exacerbate existing problems with street drinking and alcohol-related disorder. They cited case law that supports refusing licences solely on the grounds of area saturation. The Metropolitan Police Service also objected, highlighting the prevalence of street drinking and the burden on emergency services.

The applicant's representative argued that the premises was small, alcohol would not be the primary focus, and that recent closures of other licensed premises in the area might justify an exception to the CIA policy. They also highlighted the successful operation under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and proposed conditions to mitigate impact. However, the sub-committee considered the previous refusal of a similar application for the same premises and determined that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the premises would not contribute to the negative local cumulative impact. The sub-committee concluded that granting the licence would undermine the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application.