Agenda item
Application for a New Premise Licence for the Troxy, 490 Commercial Road, London, E1 0HX
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Troxy, 490 Commercial Road, London E1 0HX. It was noted that representations were received by two local residents and a resident’s association with concerns relating to public nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
The Sub Committee heard from Mr Donne, Licensing Representative and Mr Sutton-Roberts, Director of the Company. Mr Donne explained that the premises already had an existing premises licence which had been in place for many years. However, this new application had been made because the venue was being refurbished and would include the provision of forty extra toilet facilities, he emphasised the fact that the existing licence conditions were somewhat vague and unenforceable and therefore the new application included proposed conditions which were more clear, robust, enforceable and proportionate to the licence if granted.
It was noted that the responsible authorities had been consulted, in particular the metropolitan police, and no concerns had been raised and therefore no representations had been received from any of the responsible authorities against this application.
Mr Sutton-Roberts also addressed the Sub-Committee and gave a brief history of the premises, it was noted that that the venue had been re-opened in 2006 and held around 150 events each year which included award shows, concerts, corporate events etc. and approximately 150,000 guests attended these events in total. That they generated business for the community and also employed local residents. He did not agree that the use of Nitrous Oxide (NOx) was anything to do with patrons of the Premises and it was not uncommon to see members of the public with their vehicles park up inhaling NOx.
Mr Donne asked that the Sub Committee note the additional submitted documents such as the plans, operational manual and fire risk assessment, etc. he said that all advertising and public notice requirements had been met and that flyers had been sent out last year to residents with contact details of the management team should they have any concerns.
He concluded by stating that should the licence be granted, new conditions would be imposed which would help alleviate the concerns of residents. He said that the company operated a serious business and they were keen to work with its neighbours. He emphasised that the benefit of granting the application was a better licence overall, with clearer conditions. He noted that some of the issues of concern related to issues during the daytime, such as queues and that guests left promptly after club nights and there were no issues with dispersal.
Members then heard from Mr. Askor, local resident, he stated that the area was residential and that a number of elderly people lived in the nearby blocks. Ogilvie House, which was across the road, contained 150 flats. Crowd control was poor and the pavement by the Premises was frequently blocked by the queues. He had made a number of complaints about noise nuisance, none of which had been resolved. Residents were unable to open windows due to the noise and patrons would urinate in their car parks and doorways. He asserted that the Premises should not be able to operate beyond midnight.
Members also heard from Mr Islam a spokesperson on behalf of the Pitsea TRA. He stated that they did not wish to stop the premises from trading but also did not consider that licensable activity should be permitted after midnight. He highlighted similar concerns as Mr. Askor and said that the music from within the Premises was audible. He stated that they had not seen the flyer sent out by the venue. He reiterated the allegations in the representation such as public urination, use of and selling of drugs, and blocking of the highway and the use of NOx.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- That it was unclear whether complaints of noise nuisance had been made to any of the responsible authorities.
- That the spokesperson for the TRA accepted that he could not prove that drugs were being sold and were linked to the Premises, but he was of the view it was.
- That a “significant sporting event.” would include events such as international or European football or rugby, The Ashes, and similar. The Legal Adviser further explored the possibility of greater clarity around this, and suggested a condition on the licence should it be granted that prior notification to the Licensing Authority is given for such events.
- That any litter would be dealt with by litter pickers after any event as there was no public waste bins on Pitsea Street. The objectors, however, asserted that litter picking was not carried out.
- Concerns were raised about patrons urinating in public, it was noted that the venue had explored the idea of having portaloos on the highway with the Council but this was not possible to facilitate.
- That the current licence allowed a capacity of 3,100 people standing and that the new application had applied for 3,600.
Concluding remarks were made by all parties.
DECISION
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Troxy London Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of The Troxy, 490 Commercial Road, London, E1 0HX (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol, the provision of late night refreshment, and various forms of regulated entertainment. The start times differed but all ceased at midnight on Sunday, 02:00 hours Monday to Thursday, and 04:00 hours on Friday and Saturday. The closing times were thirty minutes after the cessation of licensable activities. In addition, non-standard timings were sought to 04:00 hours on bank holidays, until 06:00 hours on New Year’s Day, and twenty-four hours when there was “a significant sporting event.” The premises are already licensed and the application confirmed that the existing licence would be surrendered in the event that the application was granted.
Representations were received against the application from two local residents and from a residents’ association. These were based predominantly on the prevention of public nuisance and alleged, among other things, noise and obstruction from patrons queuing, use of drugs and laughing gas and associated litter, noise disturbance late at night, and public urination.
The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Mr. Donne, and Mr. Sutton-Roberts, the director of the applicant company. Mr. Donne explained that the application had been made because the venue was to be refurbished. The refurbishment included the provision of around forty extra toilets. The existing licence conditions were vague and unenforceable and the conditions had been thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered in the application. None of the responsible authorities had any concerns about the application and they had engaged with the proposed conditions. Additional conditions over and above what had been sought by the responsible authorities had also been agreed.
Mr. Roberts briefly outlined the history of the Troxy. The venue had been re-opened in 2006 and held around 150 events each year. Around 150,000 people attended these events in total. They generated business for the community and employed local residents. It was a very important live music venue, especially as many others had been closed. Flyers had been sent to around 300 residents and businesses. The allegations of Nitrous Oxide (NOx) use were nothing to do with patrons of the Premises; it was not uncommon to see vehicles park up and their occupants inhaling NOx.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Askor, who had made a representation. He stated that the area was residential and that a number of elderly people lived in the nearby blocks. Ogilvie House, which was across the road, contained 150 flats. Crowd control was poor and the pavement by the Premises was frequently blocked by the queues. He had made a number of complaints about noise nuisance, none of which had been resolved. Residents were unable to open windows due to the noise and patrons would urinate in their car parks and doorways. He asserted that the Premises should not be able to operate beyond midnight.
The Sub-Committee also heard from a spokesperson on behalf of the Pitsea TRA. He stated that they did not wish to stop the licence but did not consider that licensable activity should be permitted after midnight. He echoed some of Mr. Askor’s concerns and also stated that music from within the Premises was audible. He stated that they had not seen the flyer sent out by the venue. He reiterated the allegations in the representation such as public urination, use of and selling of drugs, and blocking of the highway.
During questions from members, the spokesperson for the TRA accepted that he could not prove that drugs were being sold and that it was linked to the Premises but that he knew what it looked like. It was not clear that complaints of noise breakout from the venue had been made to any of the authorities.
There was discussion as to precisely what might constitute a “significant sporting event.” The Sub-Committee was told that this would include events such as international or European football or rugby, The Ashes, and similar. The Legal Adviser further explored the possibility of greater clarity around this and which potentially included prior notification to the Licensing Authority.
Mr. Donne emphasised that the benefit of granting the application was a better licence overall, with clearer conditions. He noted that some of the issues of concern related to issues during the daytime, such as queues. People left promptly after club nights and there were no issues with dispersal. This would be more tightly conditioned if the application were to be granted.
The issue of toilets and patrons urinating in public was discussed. Mr. Donne had noted in his skeleton argument that the person urinating did not appear to be one of their patrons, given that he was wearing a shirt and tie. In any event, however, they had explored the use of portaloos on the highway with the Council and this had not been possible. SIA were deployed at an early time and the videos seen by members showed them dealing with people and moving them off the road. Litter would be dealt with by litter picking after any events. There were no public waste receptacles on Pitsea Street. The objectors, however, asserted that litter picking was not carried out.
Mr. Donne clarified that the current licence allowed a capacity of 3,100 people standing and that they had applied for 3,600. The fire risk assessment allowed for 3,800. He also suggested that the current licence allowed for a number of late events and that the new licence was not as generous as the existing licence.
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. It should be noted at the outset that the Premises are already licensed and this was not a review application. Similarly, it was not a variation. To some extent, this limited the Sub-Committee’s options.
The Sub-Committee noted the lack of representations from responsible authorities and from others. However, that was an entirely neutral factor and could not be taken as indicating tacit support. Had the responsible authorities wished to expressly support the application they could have done so. Similarly, the lack of more residential representations, either in support or against, could not be considered to be anything other than a neutral factor.
The Sub-Committee noted that some of the issues of concern were unrelated to the later hours sought. The issues with queuing, for example, took place during the day and were not a problem at the end of the evening. The Sub-Committee noted also the potential advantages of having more robust and clearer conditions.
The Sub-Committee accepted that some issues could not be attributed to the Premises on the information presented. There was no evidence that the NOx canisters were dropped by patrons and it was of note that the videos the Sub-Committee were shown did not appear to show any evidence of this. Similarly, there was only one video evidencing public urination and the Sub-Committee could not infer this was from a patron. However, the Sub-Committee accepted that it was likely that the assertion of patrons urinating in the car parks and doorways of nearby residential blocks was true to a degree.
Nonetheless, the Sub-Committee was very concerned about the substantially increased scope of the licence if granted. The licence presently, in general terms, allowed for licensable activity until midnight Sunday to Thursday and to 02:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. The application sought to extend those hours from Monday to Saturday by an additional two hours every day. Whilst Mr. Donne had suggested that this could happen under the existing licence, it could only do so on a limited basis. The licence allowed for an extension until around 06:00 hours on Friday and Saturday on twelve occasions per year (including New Year’s Eve) and to 02:00 hours on forty-eight occasions per year on Sunday to Thursday. Capacity limits were also applicable to both particular events and to some of those extended hours.
What this application sought to do was to make the Premises a late-night venue six days per week with a substantially increased capacity. The Sub-Committee noted that the venue was situated in an area that was residential, with a number of blocks in the immediate vicinity. The Sub-Committee was therefore very concerned at the possibility of 3,600 people exiting the Premises late at night or in the early hours of the morning and the almost inevitable consequence of noise disturbance from those patrons, especially after an evening of drinking and loud music. That was far more difficult to control with conditions and it would likely have an impact on residents and others in the immediate vicinity.
The Council has a policy which specifies its preferred hours and whilst these are guideline hours only, the policy highlights the risk of greater scrutiny the later a venue wishes to operate. The Sub-Committee had regard to those matters, which are listed at paragraph 16.9 of the Policy. The Sub-Committee considered that the application did not properly address or consider the likely impact of large numbers of people leaving the venue in the early hours on a much more regular basis than they do at present.
The Sub-Committee noted that there was nothing before it to suggest that the Premises had operated to cause a problem when it did make use of its extended hours. However, those extensions, on at most sixty occasions during the year, did not mean that extending the hours on more than three hundred days per year, which is what this application would do, meant that there could and would be no additional impact on the surrounding area with respect to public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee noted also the statutory guidance at paragraphs 9.42 to 9.44, which makes clear that the Licensing Authority is best placed to decide on what is appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee considered carefully the options open to it. It considered granting the application in part, with the proposed conditions and modifying the hours to more closely match the current licence. However, as the current licence would have effect unless and until surrendered, the likely outcome would be that the applicant would simply continue to operate under the current licence. Removing licensable activity from the scope of the licence would not address the Sub-Committee’s concerns. It could not be said that any one particular activity would need to be removed in order to allay those concerns. As already mentioned, the applicant would no doubt simply continue to operate under the current licence.
Refusing to specify the DPS was not an option in this instance as there was no evidence from the police that the appointment of the proposed DPS would undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that the only appropriate and proportionate step that could be taken in these particular circumstances was to refuse the application.
RESOLVED
That the application for a new premises licence for Troxy, 490 Commercial Road, London E1 0HX be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Troxy cover report - 12 Mar 24, item 4.1 PDF 260 KB
- Troxy Appendices Only - 12 Mar 24, item 4.1 PDF 13 MB