Agenda item
Application for Variation of a Premises Licence for The Craft Cocktail Club Ltd, Arch 253, Paradise Row, London, E2 9LE
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 The Craft Cocktail Company, Arch 253, Paradise Row, London E2 9LE. The application was to vary their existing licence condition to extend the outside seating area from 21:00 to 23:00 hours, seven days a week. It was noted that an objection had been received on behalf of the Environmental Health Team.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Lana Tricker, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that they wanted to vary one of their existing licence conditions for the use of the external area from 21:00 hours to 23:00 hours. She explained that the Craft Cocktail Company was a very experienced cocktail brand and given the location it was very popular, had lots of seating and good transport links and mainly attracted a female clientele. Ms Tricker stated that the application had been discussed with Responsible Authorities such as the Police and had been discussed at the local Pub Watch meeting.
It was noted when the application was first made the premises was not part of a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and the Police had made no objections. There had been no individual representations as the Applicants had developed a positive relationship with local residents. She highlighted that the concerns from Environmental Health were due to the late hours and the concerns of noise escape. Ms Tricker highlighted the fact the hours of extension were within the framework hours and any noise escape would be managed by the conditions in place and supervision by an SIA accredited door supervisor.
Ms Tricker concluded by stating the ways in which they rebut the presumption of the CIZ; they were active members of the community, the manager was the Chair of the local Pub Watch scheme, had internal polices promoting the licensing objectives, together with additional conditions offered such as a condition to limit the number of people in the outdoor area to 45 persons after 10pm. A dispersal policy, tightly controlled with two managers and four members of staff and that they were part of the Best Bar None initiative where their policies had been tested and rated.
Members then heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, she explained that any noise that would be generated from outside the premises was likely to cause a disturbance to local residents in the vicinity. She highlighted that the premises was in a CIZ and the idea of using the outdoor space would encourage other premises to apply for later hours, therefore affecting residents.
She said that Temporary Event Notice applications were not a problem but the outdoor area was only 10 metres away from residential properties, the premises had music speakers outside, and Ms. Cadzow therefore asked that speakers should not be allowed outside at any time.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- That the applicants had a good relationship with residents, have had a couple of complaints and in response to these they have turned the music down, and one occasion provided management contact details which resolved issues.
- That there had been four noise complaints altogether which were from the same two residents.
- That the premises were operating successfully and the concerns raised were only speculative.
- The front door was always kept closed to prevent noise escape.
- That the additional outdoor trading hours would financially help stabilise the business due to rising business rates.
- That the company was actively involved in the Best Bar None initiative to meet industry standards.
- The Applicant had other premises in Westminster and Oxford Circus which were also in a CIZ, however, it was noted that none of the other premises had an outdoor drinking area.
- That there were no objections from the Police [or local residents].
In conclusion Ms Cadzow said that she had concerns as the increase in hours would cause an increase in public nuisance.
Ms Tricker concluded by stating that they would limit the capacity to 45 people after 10pm, keep doors closed and have one SIA accredited door supervisor on duty on Fridays and Saturdays after 10pm.
Members adjourned the meeting at 7.10pm to deliberate and reconvened at 7.25pm.
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:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- 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 from both the Applicant’s Legal Representative and from the Environmental Health Officer with particular regard to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and so, the effect of premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIZ is that there is a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons objecting to the application, the application will be refused.
The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee considered that the onus lay upon the Applicant to show this through the operating schedule in the application, with appropriate supporting evidence that the operation of the premises, if licensed, would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee noted that the cumulative impact of the number, type and the density of licensed premises in the area may lead to problems of nuisance and disorder; and that the cumulative impact zone did not act as an absolute prohibition on granting or varying new licences within that zone, provided the Applicant could show through the operating schedule in the application, with appropriate supporting evidence that the operation of the premises, if licensed, would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee noted the representation made by the Environmental Health Officer regarding the impact of the premises on the Cumulative Impact Zone, in particular noise nuisance that would be likely to emanate from the forecourt of the premises during the late hours of the night, bearing in mind the Applicant sought variation of the terms of the premises licence so as to permit customers to sit outside and eat and/or drink on the forecourt for two hours later than the currently permitted time of 21:00 hours . It was also noted that would more likely than not, impact the are in terms of increased noise nuisance, causing public nuisance and impacting nearby residents’ family environment, account being taken of the likely increased numbers of clientele in the area attracted by being able to enjoy the forecourt area for later into evenings than currently allowed, if the application were to be granted. Therefore, granting the application would more likely than not add to the cumulative impact in the cumulative impact zone.
The Sub Committee noted the Applicant’s representation that the impact of granting the application would not be significant and if granted, the effect would be mitigated by the proposed conditions agreed and offered. However, proposed agreed conditions were entirely provisional upon the Applicant first being able to satisfy the Sub-Committee on the evidence that from the operating schedule in the application, granting the application would not result in addition to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the CIZ. The Sub Committee was not satisfied it had heard such evidence to rebut the presumption against granting an application relating to premises in a CIZ.
Although the Sub-Committee had heard of similar premises operated elsewhere without issue by the Applicant, the Sub-Committee took into account the fact that according to paragraph 19.8 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Licensing Policy, there was a strict policy of not granting applications relating to premises in a CIZ where applicants have not demonstrated exceptional circumstances such that granting the application would not negatively add to the cumulative effect upon the licensing objectives within the CIZ. Account was also taken of that Licensing Policy also saying that examples of factors which will not be considered exceptional include that the Applicant operates similar premises elsewhere without complaint, another example of something which would not be considered exceptional being that the premises are well managed and run.
The Sub-Committee concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances in relation to the application so as to satisfy the Sub-Committee that granting the application would not add to the cumulative impact in the CIZ in which the premises are located.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for The Craft Cocktail Club Ltd, Arch 253, Paradise Row, London E2 9LE be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Craft Cocktail cover report, item 4.1 PDF 115 KB
- Craft Cocktail Appendices Only, item 4.1 PDF 4 MB
- LCC Hearing Submissions, item 4.1 PDF 79 KB
- Management Policy LCC, item 4.1 PDF 535 KB