Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for Barzinho Bar & Kitchen, 60-62 Brick Lane, London E1 6RF
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Barzinho, 60-62 Brick Lane, London E1 6RF. It was noted that an objection had been received from a local resident.
Mr Rubens dos Reis, Applicant, explained that he was currently in discussions with the Landlord regarding the lease of the premises. All plans were on hold due to the uncertainty of whether the lease of the premises would be agreed and whether a new business would be able to survive in the current economic climate. Despite this, Mr dos Reis confirmed he would present the application to the best of his ability.
Mr dos Reis confirmed that the hours applied for were the same hours as the previous licence held at the premises and the hours applied for were within the Council’s framework hours. He explained the plans and layout of the premises and highlighted the kitchen area, the dining area set up and the bar area. He said that it would be a similar concept to the previous business at the premises which was an Argentinean Grill and Steak House. The new business would be a Brazilian Bar and Grill and therefore he was of the view that a licence for this premise would not be adding to the cumulative impact as the new licence would be replacing what was already there.
Members then heard from Mr Kuldip Sahota, resident objector, who explained that he had lived at the flat which was directly above the premises since April 2016. He said that application was similar to the previous business which had caused a lot of public nuisance. He explained that there were speakers fixed onto the ceiling on the first floor which is directly below his flat. He said that there were other premises nearby which also cause a lot of disturbance to him and his flatmate. There were often parties until 2am with noise and loud music making it impossible for him to sleep.
Mr Sahota explained that he suffered health problems due to the noise from the premises under the previous licence. He added that his flatmate suffered from asthma and was often unable to leave windows open for fresh air because of the noise and smoke from customers standing outside the premises. He said that the premises would need sound proofing and wanted clarification on what floors the licence was sought for.
In response to questions the following was noted:
- The Applicant confirmed that the licensable actives were for the ground floor and first floor. The basement floor would only be used for customer toilets.
- The Premises would be a bar and restaurant. The Applicant planned on converting part of the premises from a sitting area into a bar area.
- The Applicant confirmed that they would not have live music playing after 11pm but recorded music would be played during operational hours.
- The Applicant stated that the focus would be on the kitchen however he did not want customers to be limited to seated drinking only; he wanted the flexibility to allow for vertical drinking.
- The premises had capacity for 100 people to be seated.
- Signs would be displayed around the premises asking customers to leave quietly and not to disturb local residents.
- Staff would ask customers to keep quiet when leaving the premises.
- Customers would not be allowed to take drinks outside the premises.
- The Applicant was amenable to having SIA door staff on Fridays and Saturdays but he did not want to employ door staff from Sunday to Thursday.
- The Applicant was unable to guarantee that music would not affect the resident objector.
- As a measure of precaution, the Applicant could install smaller speakers around the premises to distribute the sound equally and not be too loud in one area.
- The premises would have a cultural connection to Brazil; it would be fun, open and offer cocktails.
Both parties made closing remarks.
The Chair advised all parties that a decision would be made by the Sub-Committee following the meeting and a decision notice, including the reasons for the decision, would be sent out to all parties within five working days.
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;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before it and the oral representations at the meeting from the Applicant and a local resident objecting to the application.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ). The cumulative impact policy creates 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 it can demonstrate exceptional circumstances and that the granting of the application would not negatively add to the cumulative issues already experienced within the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the resident objector that the noise from the premises and its patrons would severely affect his health and quality of life, and the quality of life of other local residents in the area. The Sub Committee also noted the Applicant’s submission that the application was for a licence similar to the licence previously in operation at this premises.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances were present. The application included plans to modify the premises by converting a sitting area into a bar and vertical drinking area. The evidence before the Sub-Committee suggested that the premises would be alcohol-led and different in nature to the licence previously in operation.
The Sub-Committee noted that recorded music would be played until closing time. The Applicant accepted that he would be unable to ensure that no noise nuisance would be suffered by local residents. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Applicant was reluctant to employ SIA security staff from Sunday to Thursday to address potential issues immediately outside the premises. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the granting of the premises licence would not add to the cumulative public nuisance and anti-social behaviour issues already experienced in the area. Accordingly, the Applicant had not successfully rebutted the CIZ presumption and the application was refused.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Barzinho, 60-62 Brick Lane, London E1 6RF be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: