Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for a variation of the Premises Licence for Discount Suit Company Ltd, 1a Bell Lane, London E1 7LA
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for variation of the Premises Licence for Discount Suit Company Ltd, 1a Bell Lane, London E1 7LA. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Andrew Kerr, the Applicant presented his application to vary the premises licence. He said he had been trading for the past seven years until 1:00 a.m. and wanted to extend the hours of operation until 2:00 a.m. for Thursday to Saturday. Mr Kerr said he had not incurred a single complaint about noise or drunken behaviour and said his cocktail bar was unique in that it is a high-end cocktail bar with a capacity of sixty people. The staff to customers ratio was high with five members of staff to eight tables and doorman on duty between Wednesday and Saturday, even though Wednesday was not a requirement under the current licence. Mr Kerr said the cocktail bar was a neighbourhood cocktail bar with many local customers. He said the timings of people leaving the venue would be staggered and said after such a terrible year, he wanted the opportunity to increase the hours of trading. Mr Kerr said he would be happy to accept a condition of no entry after 1:00 a.m. and said although he understood why there was a cumulative impact zone in the area, he did not believe this would impact on the local area in a negative way.
Members then heard from Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer, who stated the Licensing Authority were objecting to the application on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance as the premises is in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone. She said the application to extend the hours of operation ought to be refused in the first instance, unless the Applicant could rebut the presumption and show how the licensing objectives would be upheld. Ms Holland stated that the premises was in a residential area and presently operated beyond the Council’s framework hours. She said on the balance of probabilities, the Licensing Authority was concerned that the increased timings to 2:00 a.m. would cause public nuisance with high spirited customers leaving the bar adding to the issues already experienced in the area. She requested the application be refused on this basis.
Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, added that the application failed to satisfy the objective of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to public nuisance, as the noise breakout from the venue would affect neighbouring residents and patrons leaving the premises in high spirits would cause disturbance to residents at the noise sensitive hours being sought. She said whilst she acknowledged the impact the pandemic has had on local businesses Members were urged to consider the licensing objectives as per the Council Licensing policy and the protection of the public from public nuisance rather than the financial impact.
In response to questions, the following was noted:
– The premises was in a CIZ area which was saturated with licensed premises operating beyond the Council’s framework hours. The Council policy was not to allow for further extensions to premises licences unless the Applicant could demonstrate there were exceptional circumstances.
– Mr Kerr said the premises is in the basement and as such there was no risk of noise escaping from the bar, which could be heard outside. He said bookings were staggered to ensure patrons did not leave all at the same time. The tables were small and therefore there would be no big parties. Regarding smokers, Mr Kerr said the current licence allowed for five people to smoke outside, however, no drinks were permitted outside. He said no complaints had been received against the premises. Mr Kerr said the location of the premises was not in the centre of Brick Lane/Commercial Road and was off the beaten track and believed the premises would have less impact on residents.
– Ms Holland said the Council had received one complaint in August 2019 relating to the noise nuisance relating to patrons leaving the premises. This was the only complaint on record since 2014 and the premises had not come to the attention of the authorities previously. Ms Holland referred Members to page 587, point 19.8, which listed examples of exceptions to the CIZ policy.
– Mr Kerr said he has had experience of operating his business later than the licence, via TENS applications for previous Christmases which had been operated until 2:00 a.m. in 2017 and 2018. Mr Kerr said he was a responsible owner with more than ten year of experience and would continue to take steps to ensure patrons left the premises quietly, with no entry or re-entry after 1:00 a.m.
Both parties made concluding remarks.
Decision
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 licensing 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 them and the oral representations at the meeting from the Applicant and the Officers representing the Responsible Authorities objecting to the application, with particular regard to the prevention of public nuisance.
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 Licensing Authority and Environmental Health Noise Protection Team regarding the impact of the variation of the premises licence on the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), the length of the hours applied for, the residential nature of the area and the concerns relating to public nuisance of patrons entering and leaving the premises up until 2:00 a.m.
The Sub-Committee believed that insufficient measures had been proposed by the Applicant to mitigate the risk of noise nuisance to local residents at the late hours sought. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that staggered bookings, limited numbers of smokers, the presence of doormen or other additional licence conditions could adequately mitigate the risk of such public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the CIZ presumption had been rebutted as the Appellant was unable to demonstrate that the granting of the licence would not negatively add to the cumulative issues already experienced in the area. The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned that extended operating hours would lead to increased noise and public nuisance from patrons leaving the premises in high spirits as noise sensitive hours. This would have a detrimental impact on local residents.
The Applicant suggested that the premises is a unique cocktail bar with a strong reputation. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant’s application amounted to exceptional circumstances which would justify the variation sought.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted by the variation of the premises licence.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of a Premises Licence Discount Suit Company, 1a Bell Lane London E1 7LA REFUSED.
Supporting documents: