The Licensing Sub-Committee of Southwark Council met on Thursday 15 February 2024 and refused an application to vary the premises licence for Masq London, located at 201 Tooley Street, London SE1 2JX. The decision was made after considering extensive representations from residents, responsible authorities, and ward councillors, who raised concerns about public nuisance, crime, and disorder.

Masq London Premises Licence Variation Refused

The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved to refuse the application made by Masq London for a premises licence variation. This decision followed a detailed presentation of the case by the licensing officer, addresses from the applicant, the Metropolitan Police Service, and the licensing responsible authority, as well as evidence from ward councillors and numerous local residents.

The applicant, Masq London, sought to extend their operating hours by one hour on Sundays to Thursdays, and by one hour on Fridays and Saturdays. They also requested an extension for the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment. The applicant argued that these extensions were necessary to improve their business model and financial viability, citing a lack of customer patronage on weeknights and an inability to turn tables effectively with current closing times. They proposed measures such as a taxi shuttle service and increased visible security to mitigate potential issues.

However, the application was met with significant opposition. The Metropolitan Police Service objected on the grounds of preventing crime and disorder and public nuisance, highlighting previous complaints and the potential for extended hours to exacerbate existing problems. The council's licensing authority also objected, citing concerns about public nuisance and crime and disorder, and noting that despite the proposed hours aligning with those recommended for restaurants, the premises had been subject to 15 complaints.

A substantial number of residents, represented by 48 other persons objections, detailed persistent issues of public nuisance, crime, and disorder. These included loud music from vehicles, shouting, congregating in large groups outside the venue, drug use, public urination, fighting, and littering. Ward councillors for London Bridge and West Bermondsey, and North Bermondsey, also objected, echoing residents' concerns about persistent public nuisance, hostility when residents attempted to engage with patrons, and the potential for increased crime and disorder.

The sub-committee noted that the premises had a history of licence breaches, with 11 licensing visits resulting in two warning letters. They were particularly concerned by the volume and consistency of the residents' complaints, which suggested that the premises had not taken residents' concerns seriously. The sub-committee also expressed reservations about the applicant's proposed dispersal policy and taxi service, deeming them untested and potentially insufficient to address the issues.

Ultimately, the sub-committee concluded that the premises had not demonstrated they could operate to a later hour in a way that would further the licensing objectives. The proposed conditions did not alleviate their concerns, and they lacked confidence that these would prevent the public nuisance and crime and disorder already being experienced by residents. The sub-committee stated that a period of stability, engagement, and a reduction in complaints would be necessary for a different decision to be reached in the future. The applicant has the right to appeal this decision to the Magistrates' Court.