Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for variation of a Premises Licence for Printers and Stationers, 21a Ezra Street, London E2 7RH
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Printers and Stationers, 21a Ezra Street, London E2 7RH. The application was for the removal of the condition to allow drinks to be taken outside, by customers whilst seated at tables and chairs immediately in front of the wine bar. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of residents.
At the request of the Chair, the applicant Mr Augustine De La Brosse explained he was the proprietor of the wine bar which he had acquired in 2003. However, he had leased the premises to a tenant from 2013 to June 2018. Mr De La Brosse stated that owing to complaints he had received about the previous tenant, he had now taken control of his premises and wanted to expand his business so he could respond to demand and compete with others in the area; by providing patrons the facility to drink outside.
He said the area was a typical London destination where customers can appreciate the charms of the conservation area and congregate to enjoy a drink. Mr De La Brosse acknowledged the area was a mixture of commercial and residential premises and both needed to co-exist. Mr De La Brosse said his business was the smallest of its neighbours and therefore adding tables and chairs outside the premises would not contribute to the wider noise issues cited by the Objectors, and he intended to comply with the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities, such as the installation of CCTV cameras and planters to clearly define the outside space. Mr De La Brosse said he would not be trading after 9:00 p.m.
Members heard from supporters of Mr De La Brosse, who stated that Mr De La Brosse was a respected and conscientious businessman, whose presence in the community was beneficial to locals and would help to galvanise the area.
The Sub-Committee took into account the objectors’ concerns relating to public nuisance and public safety, in particular the impact of noise nuisance on family life, due to the close proximity of their homes to the street below. The Sub-Committee heard from several objectors who stated the noise nuisance they had experienced in recent years had become intolerable. They feared the area would become a magnet for crowds to come and drink in the street. The objectors provided photographic evidence of what the street looked like on a typical weekend, with crowds congregating in the street outside other premises. They said that due to the design and layout of the street, plus the back of the large Victorian primary school, the noise did not disperse easily, as it acted like an echo chamber, multiplying the noise from the street.
Concern was also raised with regard to Public Safety, as the street is a narrow cobbled street, with passing traffic. The objectors expressed concern about drinkers sitting on the kerbside and the potential risk to life, when fast moving vehicles pass through.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted:
· The primary school backs onto Ezra Street and is a large Victorian structure. The premises are on the opposite side of the school. The school is not affected however due to the design and layout of the street and the large Victorian school noise created by street drinkers does not disperse easily and acts as an echo chamber.
· In response to the size of the street, it was acknowledged that it is a narrow cobbled street, with passing vehicles. Street drinkers sat on the kerbside and there was a potential risk to life, when fast moving vehicles passed through.
· The objectors stated that if the sub-committee were minded to grant the variation, despite strict conditions, it would be impossible to monitor as people congregated in large crowds. It would not be easy to identify which premises they were patrons of. In response the applicant stated it would be easy to monitor as the space outside would be clearly separated with planters. Mr De La Brosse said that his business is presently closed and the issues cited by the objectors were geographical and not solely the responsibility of his premises.
Members adjourned the meeting at 19:25 hours to deliberate and reconvened at 20:08 hours
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licensing objectives:
1. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
2. Public Safety;
3. Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
4. The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representations presented at the meeting from both the Applicant and his supporters and the Objectors with particular regard to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.
The Sub-Committee noted the application was for the variation of the premises licence, to allow customers to drink outside whilst seated at tables and chairs immediately in front of the wine bar called Printer and Stationers, 21a Ezra Street, London E2 7RH. The applicant, Mr Augustine De La Brosse said he was the proprietor of the wine bar since 2003. However, he had leased the premises to a tenant from 2013 to June 2018. Mr De La Brosse stated that owing to complaints he had received about the previous tenant, he had now taken control of his premises and wanted to expand his business so he could respond to demand and compete with others in the area; by providing patrons the facility to drink outside. He said the area was a typical London destination where customers can appreciate the charms of the conservation area and congregate to enjoy a drink. Mr De La Brosse acknowledged the area was a mixture of commercial and residential premises and both needed to co-exist. Mr De La Brosse said his business was the smallest of its neighbours and therefore adding tables and chairs outside the premises would not contribute to the wider noise issues cited by the Objectors, and he intended to comply with the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities, such as the installation of CCTV cameras and planters to clearly define the outside space. Mr De La Brosse said he would not be trading after 9:00 p.m.
Members heard from supporters of Mr De La Brosse, who stated that Mr De La Brosse was a respected and conscientious businessman, whose presence in the community was beneficial to locals and would help to galvanise the area.
The Sub-Committee took into account the objectors’ concerns relating to public nuisance and public safety, in particular the impact of noise nuisance on family life, due to the close proximity of their homes to the street below. The Sub-Committee heard from several objectors who stated the noise nuisance they had experienced in recent years had become intolerable. They feared the area would become a magnet for crowds to come and drink in the street. The objectors provided photographic evidence of what the street looked like on a typical weekend, with crowds congregating in the street outside other premises. They said that due to the design and layout of the street, plus the back of the large Victorian primary school, the noise did not disperse easily, as it acted like an echo chamber, multiplying the noise from the street.
Concern was also raised with regard to Public Safety, as the street is a narrow cobbled street, with passing traffic. The objectors expressed concern about drinkers sitting on the kerbside and the potential risk to life, when fast moving vehicles pass through.
Members reached a decision and the decision was unanimous. Members refused the application on the basis of the evidence heard and the concerns raised about noise disturbance due to Ezra Street being a relatively narrower street in the locality, which would tend to trap noise more, causing a worse likelihood of public nuisance if the application were granted. Furthermore due to Ezra Street being a relatively narrower street in the locality, allowing outside drinking in Ezra Street would make it harder for people to pass and re-pass without them stepping into the road thus having implications for public safety.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously:-
RESOLVED
That the application for variation of the premises licence for Printers and Stationers, 21a Ezra Street, London E2 7RH be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- EzraSt21a, item 4.1 PDF 193 KB
- EzraSt21a.Appendix_Redacted, item 4.1 PDF 10 MB
- Ms Perers - additional info_Redacted, item 4.1 PDF 1 MB