Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest, identified in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine: whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are also reminded to declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it is the Members’ responsibility to identify any interests and also update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of an interest, you are advised to seek advice prior the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services.

There were no declarations of interest.

To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information.

The rules of procedure were noted.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Metropolitan Police

·       Environmental Protection

Ward: Bow East

The Sub-Committee considered and application, an objection was made by the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Protection in respect of  TEN given by Rhys Rose for Boat Live, 90 White Post Lane, London, E9. The Metropolitan Police and Environmental Protection expressed concerns as to the risk of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. In brief, there were concerns about noise breakout from the premises, noise breakout from patrons in the yard, the lack of searching, security, CCTV, etc. and the suitability and safety of the site as PC Perry said that there appeared to still be rubble on top of which sand had been placed. There was at the time of his last visit on Friday 23^rd June no running water or electricity and no public liability insurance.

Mr. Rose stated that the boat had been soundproofed and that at some point this needed to be tested. This was intended to be a test event. He was willing to work with the police and address their concerns e.g. by having mandatory searching. He told the LSC that the site had been levelled before sand had been put down, to create a chill-out area. Mr. Rose also spoke to his experience within the entertainment and licensing industry.

Mr. Rose further told the LSC that connections for the running water and electricity were being undertaken by the landlord starting yesterday and that he anticipated having the necessary certification in the next day or so. He then intended to have the appropriate level of public liability insurance. He had no intention of carrying on an event if these matters had not been addressed, hence the giving and withdrawing of previous TENs.

The Sub-Committee was concerned about the impact of public nuisance and crime and disorder.  The premises were located very close to residential blocks. It had been accepted that the boat could accommodate around forty to fifty people and the container in the yard the same. That meant potentially one hundred people in the yard, with the inevitable consequence of noise nuisance that could not really be effectively controlled. The Sub-Committee also were considered about the adequacy of soundproofing on the boat; it would have been helpful if Mr. Rose had contacted Ms. Cadzow in advance to try to test the efficacy of the soundproofing and perhaps assess an appropriate noise level. The Sub-Committee considered a degree of public nuisance to be inevitable and that was before one factors in the effects of intoxication and loud music.

Similarly, the Sub-Committee accepted that the likelihood of patrons attending with drugs and that the measures initially proposed by Mr. Rose would not be adequate. Again, music, large crowds and drink and drugs gave rise to a risk of an increase in crime and disorder.

In terms of the site itself, the Sub-Committee was not assisted by the lack of photos or other documentation. Given that this had been in issue previously, it would have been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

The Sub Committee may be requested to extend the decision deadline for applications to be considered at forthcoming meetings due to the volume of applications requiring a hearing.  Where necessary, details will be provided at the meeting.