Agenda item
Application for a New Premise Licence for Travel Goods, 79 Wentworth Street, London, E1 7TD
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 Travel Goods, 79 Wentworth Street, London, E1 7TD.It was noted that objections had been received from officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health. It was noted that the application was for a ground floor and basement, bar and restaurant.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Barry Holland, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant, explained this application fit the exceptional rules for granting an application within the cumulative impact zone (CIZ). It was a small premises, with a capacity of 50 and was a food led premises with no regulated entertainment. He said that a robust set of conditions had been agreed with the police and emphasised the premises was not a pub but a restaurant. He then highlighted the benefits of the premises, and the applicant’s experiences of operating other licensed premises. Mr Holland was of the view that a premises licence would not adversely affect the area as no residents had objected.
The Sub-Committee then heard from Mr Andy Newman, Independent Licensing Consultant who referred to his report contained in the supplemental agenda and upon his findings agreed with the conditions suggested by the police. He also said that the premises was a small food led premises and would be well managed and that the surrounding venues gave a positive impression of the area and would welcome the availability for such a venue in the area.
Members then heard from Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, who explained that the premise was in the CIZ where there were high levels of anti-social behaviour. She welcomed the reduction in hours and stated that if it was a restaurant then why was there a need for sale of alcohol for both on and off sales of alcohol. She accepted that the premises was a small premises but believed that it could cause a disturbance to local residents nearby. She highlighted that residents lived directly opposite the premises and to the rear and side of the premises. Ms Driver also highlighted that the plans included tables and chairs outside the premises for dining but a closing of time of 11pm for the outdoor area was too late which would likely to cause disturbance to neighbouring residents. She also raised concerns as to why there was a need for a private dining room area.
Members also heard from Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health, who referred to her representation on page 169 of the agenda and stated that there was a great likelihood of disturbance to residential properties at the noise sensitive hours sought, with particular consideration to the fact the premises was in the CIZ. She also believed that there was insufficient information in the operating schedule on how they would promote the licensing objectives.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the premises would be a fine dining restaurant, and staff would manage and ensure customers were not misbehaving.
- That the pavement licence for tables and chairs would be determined by the Highways department.
- Private dining area, was a concept taken from other branches the Applicant manages, where a private dining area is available for customers to book for special events.
- That the private dining area could be used pursuant to a Temporary Event Notice if and when needed.
- As a safety feature, the applicant would introduce brighter lighting for the outside area.
- Officers suggested that use of the outdoor seating area be restricted to 9pm in order to prevent residents from being disturbed.
Concluding remarks were made by both parties.
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 them and the oral representations at the meeting from the Applicant’s Legal Representative and from officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health 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 unless the Applicant can demonstrate that the application will not negatively impact the CIZ.
The Applicant stressed to the Sub-Committee that the premises were food-led, with a small number of covers and that they therefore met the exception within the Council’s Policy at paragraph 19.8.
The Applicant also emphasised that the police had withdrawn their representation following a reduction in the hours to Framework Hours and agreement to a number of conditions. No residents had objected. In addition, some other local authorities, as a result of the pandemic, had suspended or relaxed their CIZs.
The written representation from the Licensing Authority referred to the CIZ and that the original operating schedule provided very little detail as to the proposed conditions. It particularly noted the lack of regard to the potential impact on the CIZ, especially with respect to public nuisance, and given that there are a number of residential properties in the immediate vicinity. Ms. Driver, in her oral submissions, drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the reference in the application to the basement area of the premises and what that might be used for. She also considered that the terminal hour of 23:00 hours agreed with the police for the use of the outside area was too late and also risked giving rise to public nuisance.
Nicola Cadzow, on behalf of Environmental Health, was also concerned with the potential for noise disturbance and public nuisance and the potential for the use of the basement for private parties. The use of the outside area as well, and the potential that had to give rise to noise disturbance to nearby properties, was a concern. Ms. Cadzow too highlighted the operating schedule set out in the application itself, which had only one condition to address public nuisance.
During the discussion, Members sought clarification on the use of the outside area and whether the Applicant was willing to reduce the time at which alcohol could be consumed outside. The time of 21:00 hours was suggested. The Sub-Committee was informed that this would be addressed within the context of a pavement licence under the Business and Planning Act 2020 and that if, which the Applicant understood to be the case, that licensing authority imposed such hours, the Applicant would abide by. However, Ms. Cadzow pointed out that Rose Court, where the Sub-Committee understood the tables and chairs would be, was in fact included in the plan for the licence.
Although the application referred to the basement, this area was not recorded on the plan. When asked what use was specifically intended the Sub-Committee was told that it might be used for things such as demonstrations by chefs.
The Sub-Committee noted that the exceptions to the CIZ referred to within the Policy, are merely examples of exceptions that may apply; they are not stated to be examples that will apply and the burden upon applicants remains. Similarly, that the premises are well-run, which should be the case in any event, or that the Applicant operates similar premises elsewhere, are specifically stated not to be considered exceptional.
That the police had agreed conditions with the Applicant was simply one factor to be weighed in the balance and could not be considered in any way determinative of the merits of the application. Given that the operating schedule originally proposed was rather sparse, especially given the premises’ location within a CIZ, it was therefore unsurprising that the police had sought to agree conditions and a reduction in hours. However, that alone could not, in the Sub-Committee’s view, mitigate the likely impact nor did that trump the other objections to the application
In addition, the original operating schedule did not give the Sub-Committee confidence that the Applicant had properly considered the potential impact of the licence upon the CIZ and the licensing objectives. Some of the answers given during the course of the hearing similarly gave the Sub-Committee no reassurance. It was suggested, for example, that noise outside could be adequately addressed by a condition requiring the use of a noise meter. Such a condition was inappropriate to address noise from patrons, which is entirely different from music noise played at a relatively constant level. It would also not be able to differentiate between noise sources or take account of background noise. The lack of clarity in respect of the basement area again suggested to the Sub-Committee that the application had not been fully thought through with regard to the CIZ.
The suggestion that alcohol only be served to seated patrons similarly did not address the Sub-Committee’s concerns. The Sub-Committee was told that this was a restaurant although the application itself referred to a restaurant and bar. The agreed conditions did not prevent patrons attending the premises and sitting outside drinking until 23:00 hours.
The Sub-Committee had had regard to Mr. Newman’s report. However, it did not provide the Sub-Committee with any particular assistance. Whilst the pandemic has no doubt had an impact on the area, a single visit on a Saturday night did nothing more than to give a snapshot of that particular evening; it could not be said to be in any way demonstrative of the area in general nor did it suffice to satisfy the Sub-Committee that the application would not have a negative impact.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the imposition of conditions additional to those already agreed would suffice to mitigate the potential impact upon the CIZ. The application did not give the Sub-Committee confidence that that applicant had properly considered and understood the area in which it sought to operate. Whilst the Sub-Committee had noted the agreed conditions and the reduction in hours, Members did not consider that this was enough to mitigate against the potential to add to the nuisance and anti-social behaviour already experienced in the area and which had given rise to the imposition of the CIZ. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the only appropriate and proportionate step that could be taken was to refuse the application.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Travel Goods, 79 Wentworth Street, London E1 7TD be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Travel Goods cover report, item 4.2 PDF 275 KB
- Travel Goods Appendices Only, item 4.2 PDF 9 MB
- 1. 210720.Ltr to Tower Hamlets, item 4.2 PDF 169 KB
- 2. Wentworth Street - OMP Framework - Carousel, item 4.2 PDF 154 KB
- 3. Wentworth St Report - A Newman Consultancy, item 4.2 PDF 116 KB
- 4. R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites Plc) v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court, item 4.2 PDF 213 KB