Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for a New Premises Licence for Time Out Market, 106 Commercial Street, E1 6LZ
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Kathy Driver introduced the report which detailed the application for a New Premises Licence for Time Out Market, 106 Commercial Street, E1 6LZ. It was noted that the applicant amended the application as follows: -
· Withdrawing “recorded music” from the application and to keep the noise limiter condition to provide additional comfort to the residents.
· The sale by retail of alcohol will be ancillary to food throughout the building with the following exceptions –
o Before 9pm, the ground floor area cross hatched black (on the recently served plan)
o The basement area cross hatched black (on the recently served plan)
At the request of the Chair, Mr Gareth Hughes, applicant’s representative requested that the “Resident Observations London” contained in the Supplementary Pack from pages 70-79 that had been “redacted” be re-circulated to the Sub Committee to be considered in support of their application.
The Chair, Councillor Peter Golds sought the advice of Vivienne Walker (Legal Services) who advised the Sub Committee that the information should be circulated to the Sub Committee for consideration during the deliberations.
Members then heard from Mr Gareth Hughes (applicant’s representative) who informed the Sub Committee that the premises already had two existing licenses in place and the licence holders were prepared to surrender their licences if the application were to be granted. The application was for a fine dining restaurant with 17 kitchens providing a family friendly environment with local artists’ demonstrations and involving local residents similar to the offer at the Lisbon Branch. The applicant met with local residents on about 5 occasions and listened to their concerns and as a result proposed 6 new conditions as follows: -
· Condition 24 – The sale by retail of alcohol will be ancillary to food throughout the building, with the following exceptions –
o Before 9pm, the ground floor area cross hatched black (on the recently served plan)
o The basement area cross hatched black (on the recently served plan)
· Condition 25 – The premises licence holder shall ensure that any patrons smoking outside the premises after 9pm are limited to the area cross hatched blue on the ground floor plan and are supervised by staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the public highway.
· Condition 26 – Notices shall be prominently displayed at any area used for smoking requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and use the area quietly.
· Condition 27 – There will be at least three (3) Time out Ambassadors employed at the premises whose duties are solely to assist in promoting the four licensing objectives. They will be fully trained in respect of all aspects of the premises licence. They will assist the Time out Market Operations Team monitor and manage customers’ behaviour.
· Condition 28 – A direct telephone number for the managers at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.
· The licence holder shall meet with local residents not less than once every month (as required by the local residents).
Mr Hughes informed the Sub Committee that Mr Souillat (applicant) and Ms Parrish (Commercial Director) had significant experience between them in the restaurant business and that was supported by various letters of support from leading Chefs and restaurants in the London area, Trip Advisor feedback (Time Out Market, Lisbon), design and access statements, concept visuals and plans, an acoustics report, an operational management statement, a report from Mr Adrian Studd (former Chief Inspector with the Metropolitan Police), market design statement, market transport statement, statement of community engagement, a customer journey and a risk assessment and fire evacuation plan. Mr Hughes also referred to the quality of the documentation that had been submitted on behalf of the applicant, together with all the policy and design plans.
Members heard representations from Mr Edwards, Mr Wheeler, Ms Kay and Mr Jenkins who each referred to their own experiences of the area and the existing premises together with the following concerns: -
· Residents fear that the inevitable failure of the fine dining operation will be followed by the conversion of the entire premises to a full on bar;
· It will be one of the largest bar operations in London, entirely contrary to licensing policy in the area;
· The prospect of approximately 450 drinkers exiting onto the street at closing time, right on a very busy road junction, is quite horrendous;
· The proposed operation offers just 6 female toilets, 2 male toilets and 4 urinals which is hopelessly below the building regulation standards;
· The problems with urination in the local streets is well documented and can only be made worse by such a larger bar operation with such a low standard of sanitation;
· All deliveries will also use the same entrance as the 2,000 daily customers and at the same time during normal opening hours;
· This poses a real danger to public safety and certainly does not fit with the idea of a fine dining experience;
· There are 3 escape routes from the premises, in the event of a fire any one of these must be discounted so the other 2 must be able to accommodate the numbers to be evacuated;
· There is only one 3-foot wide staircase available to customers between the 1st and 2nd floors;
· The kitchen extract duct to serve all 17 restaurants is proposed to be mounted externally above the roof with a high velocity discharge directed at many residential properties to the south of the site;
· The noise created by this badly designed ventilation strategy will cause a serious public nuisance;
· Time Out’s acoustic consultant has made recommendations on how to minimise this noise but their architects have not incorporated these recommendations into their scheme;
· There has been an increase of a massive proliferation of clubs, pubs, restaurants and licensed premises in the area over the last 5 years;
· This increase has caused more and more anti-social behaviour on the street outside their homes;
· Woken up by drunken people regularly, screaming, singing and arguing loudly on the streets;
· Plagued by broken glass, signs of urination and vomit in the gardens;
· The premises is landlocked on all 4 sides by residential properties;
· Many properties have living and sleeping spaces which are directly adjoining the former stable walls of the site;
· The entrance is meant to be able to cope with the expected 2,000 + daily visitors;
· Smokers will use the already congested narrow pavement outside the premises;
· The noise and disorderly behaviour that will be generated by over 2,000 customers a day together with the waste collections, food and drink deliveries will be unbearable; and
· The Cumulative Impact Zone (C.I.Z) policy exists for a particular reason in relation to the Brick Lane area and this application is within that area.
In response to questions from Members it was noted, that:
· the applicant confirmed that the C.I.Z was a rebuttable presumption;
· there was no representations from any of the Responsible Authorities and the evidence presented by Mr Studds showed that the operation of the restaurant would not contribute to the crime and disorder in the area.
· The number of people visiting the premises based upon 450 seats is within the region of 2,000 people per day when it is busy.
· The restaurants would be offering 16 types of food with a “buzzer” option for when the food order is placed.
· There would be seats on every floor, so there would be very little traffic between floors and the space is family oriented.
· The restaurant would operate properly with street marshals monitoring the behaviour of people on the streets and would not have an impact on the area and the number of people entering and leaving the premises.
Members adjourned the meeting at 7:55pm to consider the decision and reconvened at 8:07pm.
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 licencing 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 has carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation on behalf of the applicant and the objectors with particular regard to the licensing objections of prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.
In addition Members took note of the Home Office guidance which states that “where there are objections to an application to extend the hours during which licensable activities are to be carried on and the licensing authority determines that this would undermine the licensing objectives, it may reject the application or grant it with appropriate conditions and/or different hours from those requested”.
Members took into account and considered representation made by local residents and the impact on the CIZ. Members also considered the amended application and the proposed conditions by the applicant and the impact of the application on the local area and the Licensing Objectives as it related to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Members also considered the increase in number of people that would be visiting the premises on a daily basis.
Therefore considering all of the above, Members decided to REFUSE the application.
Decision
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously –
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Time Out Market, 106 Commercial Street, E1 6LZ be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- 4.3a Time Out rpt, item 3.2 PDF 101 KB
- 4.3b Time Out Appendices - Revised REDACTION 200217, item 3.2 PDF 7 MB
- 3.3a1 Time out supp, item 3.2 PDF 464 KB
- 3.3a2 Time Out Brochure, item 3.2 PDF 27 MB
- 3.3b Time Out supp obj, item 3.2 PDF 313 KB