Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for (Players Social) 1 Crispin Place, London E1 6DW
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Players Social, 1 Crispin Place, London E1 6DW. Mr Ali explained that this was an application for a premises licence in addition to the premises licence which currently exists at the premises. It was noted that objections had been received by Officers on behalf of Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Jon Payne, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant, explained that the application was for an extension of licensable activities for the outdoor glass roof seating area. He explained that there were gaming booths and other gaming facilities such as table tennis, pool tables and other playing areas and required a provision for off sale of alcohol in order to serve customers in the outdoor area. Mr Payne highlighted that this was a unique business concept and had been operating for some time with temporary events notices.
Mr Payne, referred to the incident that occurred on 22 May 2021, which had been reported to the Sub-Committee and explained that both the Applicants were unhappy and disappointed with the incident. They had taken strong actions as a result of it and put in place new arrangements. It was noted that a new CCTV camera system was being installed, and the business was employing additional security staff, and offering soft drinks. He said that the incident had got worse because of the intervention from security officers and staff. It was noted that police were called and the licensee had acted responsibly after the incident had started.
Mr Payne explained that existing conditions on the current licence would be transferred over if a licence was to be granted, which would help rebut the presumption of the cumulative impact zone. He said that the hours applied for were within the Council’s framework hours and it was noted that there had been no complaints or issues prior to the incident that had been referred to. He urged Members to grant the licence as an incident of such nature could have happened at any premises. Mr Ben Hodges, Applicant, said that the gaming concept was at the request of the Landlord who wanted better use of the outdoor open space, this had been well received by customers and wanted to continue during the summer months. It was noted that the manager should have known where the premises licence was displayed and as a result was no longer working at the premises.
Members then heard from Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, she explained that she had initially objected, because the application was vague, and would mean an additional 140 persons in the outside area. She questioned why a variation application was not made instead of a new licence as it was now a new additional licence application in the Cumulative Impact Zone. Ms Holland then referred to the recent incident at the premises, where there was a large police presence and resulting in a police officer being attacked. She said that this incident could have been avoided if staff/management had refused service before it got to the point where the customer was fully intoxicated. Ms Holland stated that the venue was poorly run and the CCTV was not working, and this had been a condition that was agreed with the police, and this was a failure on management’s part.
Ms Holland said that the premises was in the Cumulative Impact Zone and as this was an additional licence, the onus lies on the Applicant to rebut the presumption of the Cumulative Impact Zone. She expressed her concern that this licence, if granted, would mean an additional 100 plus people in an area which already experiences high levels of public nuisance. She also highlighted that double the maximum number of TENs had been applied for by the applicants and this had only been brought to Licensing Services’ attention during this application process. She concluded that there was a serious lack of control by management and an inability to supervise staff.
Members then heard from Mr Ibrahim Elias, Environmental Health Officer. He said having reviewed the application, there was insufficient information in the operating schedule in order to demonstrate how the applicant would promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance, particularly when considering the use of the outdoor area. He also stated that there were residential premises in close proximity, and there were concerns of noise breakout from the venue affecting neighbouring residents with noise impact from access and egress from the venue, especially when customers would be leaving in high spirits.
In response to questions, the following was noted;
- That the reason for not applying for a variation application was to keep the two areas (indoors and outdoors) separate, but the operation of the business would be exactly the same.
- Some of the new measures in place at the premises were new door staff to prevent intoxicated persons from entering the venue, booking system, ensuring alcohol is consumed in a responsible way.
- The premises would have substantial meals on their menu.
- That the CCTV cameras from Spitalfields Market were sufficient at the time to capture the incidentmentioned.
- That management were in the process of installing a CCTV camera system and therefore this showed commitment from owners.
- Letter of support from Spitalfields Market operators
- Head of Security for Spitalfields Market had spoken to the Chair of the Spitalfields Residents Association regarding the incident.
- That the TENS applications were for two different locations in the market area.
- That there were 50 covers inside the premises and 114 covers for the external area.
- There would be a waiter/waitress service for drinks to be delivered to the gaming booths etc.
- That a premises licence would help regulate the premise, giving the local authority more control to monitor the premises.
- That the application was for both on and off sale of alcohol.
- The Applicant presented in an attempt to rebut the presumption against grant of a licensing application for premises in a Cumulative Impact Zone, that there would be additional security, a booking system in operation and prohibition on any hen/stag parties.
Both parties made concluding remarks.
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 heard oral representations at the meeting made by the Applicant, the Applicant’s Licensing Representative and from the officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health objecting to the application.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is in a cumulative impact zone (the 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 add to the cumulative issues already experienced within the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations made by the Responsible Authorities, in particular from the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health regarding the risk of noise nuisance and effects on the CIZ. It also noted concerns about the existing levels of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour in the area, the quality of life of other local residents in the area and the risk of increased noise nuisance and disturbance, if the premises licence was to be granted.
Members also noted the serious concerns raised by the Licensing Authority in relation to a serious incident on 22 May 2021 and the lack of control demonstrated by management during this incident. This reinforced the concern that granting an additional licence in this CIZ would add to the cumulative impact in the area, not ony in terms of public nuisance, but also in relation to alcohol fuelled crime and disorder.
The Sub Committee appreciated that the Applicant was offering conditions and measures to prevent any such further disturbance. However, fact that such a serious incident had occurred meant that the Sub Committee were not confident in the applicant’s ability to uphold the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance and preventing crime and disorder.
The Sub-Committee were of the view that a venue with a licence for the sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment would potentially increase crime and disorder and public nuisance in an area, which already experiences high levels of anti-social behaviour. The Sub Committee was not satisfied that the presumption against grant of an application for a licence for alcohol in the CIZ had been rebutted. The Sub-Committee were not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated any exceptional circumstances or evidence to justify a grant of a new premises licence in the CIZ, and the Sub-Committee’s concerns in this regard were reinforced by the serious incident on 22 May 2021.
Therefore, Members made a unanimous decision to refuse the application.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Players Social, 1 Crispin Place, London E1 6DW be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Players Social cover report, item 3.1 PDF 359 KB
- Players Social Appendices Only, item 3.1 PDF 7 MB
- Sup Docs 1 on behalf of LA, item 3.1 PDF 324 KB
- Sup Docs 2 on behalf of LA, item 3.1 PDF 362 KB
- supporting material-crispin place, item 3.1 PDF 10 MB