Agenda item
Application for a New Premise Licence for The East London Wineworks, Unit 5 (Ground Floor), The Huntingdon Estate, Ebor Street, London E1 6JU
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a time limited premises licence for The East London Wineworks, Unit 5 Ground Floor, The Huntingdon Estate, Ebor Street, London E1 6JU. It was noted that objections had been made by officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr James Daglish, Legal Representative, explained that although Planning was a separate regime it was important to note that planning permission was being sought for the premises. It was noted that subject to outcome of this hearing it was more appropriate for the application to be for a time limited premises for a maximum of 2 years. He explained that the Applicant was a small independent business looking to sell bespoke set of wines and non-alcoholic wines. Mr Daglish said the applicant would be focusing on events for private and corporate groups. They would be sampling different wines with food and then offering the option for them to purchase drinks as takeaway. He explained that the style of operation was very focussed and for a niche market and would not negatively impact on the area.
Members heard from Mr Richard Vivan, Acoustic Engineer, he referred to his findings and stated that this premises would be low impact on the area and was in line with the exceptional circumstances described in 19.8 of the Tower Hamlets Special Cumulative Impact Policy, as the hours were within council’s framework hours and had a small capacity of 45 and had good practices in place. He referred Members to page 216 of the agenda which detailed conditions offered to help promote the licensing objectives for smokers, deliveries and collections and other good practices.
Mr Daglish emphasised that 19.8 of the Special Cumulative Impact Policy stated that exceptional circumstances applied to this premises as it had a capacity of under 50, and the hours applied for were within the framework hours. He also stated that the applicant would be willing to reduce the hours by 1 hour every evening and was also in agreement of the condition on page 251 of the agenda, which restricts the sale of alcohol ancillary to a meal or for pre-booked wine tasting events. Therefore, customers could not just walk in and use the premises as a drinking establishment.
Members then heard from Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, objecting to the application who explained that the premises was within the CIZ. She expressed concerns that the premises could turn into a bar in the future if a licence was to be granted. Ms Driver highlighted that the premises was on the border of Bethnal Green behind boundary estate where the highest levels of anti-social behaviour are reported. She suggested that if Members were minded to grant the application then they should consider the outdoor area to be closed by 9pm. Ms Driver also suggested that more detail should be given on where smokers would be situated and further conditions specifically for online deliveries should be considered.
Members then heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer explained that although there are many conditions on the operating schedule including for the prevention of public nuisance it was unclear whether the premises could potentially become a wine bar and have an impact on the CIZ.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the Applicant would consider a reduced capacity of 40 persons at the premises.
- Agreed to limit 5 smokers to smoke outside at any one time.
- That the applicant would consider closing the external area for licensable activities by 9pm.
- That the lease doesn’t allow the premises to turn into a bar.
- That there was no bar area inside the premises.
- There would be no music other than background music.
- There would be no speakers outside the premises.
Concluding remarks were made by all 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 licensing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol from 12:00 noon every day and finishing at 23:00 hours Monday to Thursday, 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday, and 22:00 hours on Sunday. The Premises are located within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) as defined within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (2018-2023). Representations were received from responsible authorities, the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Health Service, against the application. The representations referred to the CIZ and were concerned that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that they should be an exception to the Policy.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Daglish, the applicant’s solicitor. He informed the Sub-Committee that planning permission had yet to be granted in respect of the Premises and that the lease of the Premises would be a short one. The result of planning permission would be that the unit would cease to exist in the future and, for that reason, he amended the application to seek a premises licence limited to two years.
Mr. Daglish explained that the emphasis would be on wine-tasting events but this would not be the primary use and, for that reason, they had offered a condition that all on-sales be limited to patrons attending for wine-tasting or to learn about wine production and would otherwise be ancillary to food. This would prevent the Premises from operating as a bar and, in any case, it did not have planning permission to operate as a bar.
Mr. Daglish suggested that the small number of patrons as well as the proposed hours, which were also within Policy, justified an exception. He also confirmed that the applicant would be willing to reduce the closing time and terminal hour for licensable activity by one hour, if that would assist and a condition that it could only operate as an East London Wineworks.
The Sub-Committee also heard from Richard Vivian of Big Sky Acoustics, who told Members that this was a low impact business in terms of noise and that there were various conditions proposed to address the public nuisance licensing objective, such as dispersal and limits on the number of smokers.
Ms. Driver, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, and Ms. Cadzow on behalf of the Environmental Health Service, maintained their objections because of the potential impact on the CIZ. Ms. Driver noted that patrons could still walk in off the street and consume alcohol and that it could nonetheless turn into a bar. The Premises themselves were on the border of Bethnal Green and opposite Box Park; this area had one of the highest rates of reported crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour within the CIZ.
Both also commented that permitting ten people outside to smoke at any one time, given that the capacity would be 45 patrons at any time, seemed very high, and suggested that this be reduced to four or five if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application. Both also suggested that the outside area not be permitted to be used after 21:00 hours. There was no objection to either of these from the applicant. As to the Premises becoming a bar, Mr. Daglish re-stated that the Premises did not have planning permission to operate as such and that the additional condition restricting on-sales would be sufficient. It was suggested that this could be restricted further by only allowing on on-sales to customers who had pre-booked a wine tasing or demonstration. Members also explored other matters such as a condition prohibiting vertical drinking and reducing numbers. Mr. Gray, the director of the applicant company, indicated that he did not expect that people would be drinking at the bar and that he would be amenable to a maximum capacity of forty persons.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application. The onus was on the applicant to rebut the presumption against grant of the licence. The Policy, at Paragraph 19.8, states that it will be strictly applied. It gives examples of factors that the authority may consider exceptional, such as small premises only operating during framework hours. However, these are not matters that the authority will consider to be exceptional in every case.
Notwithstanding the offer to reduce the permitted hours slightly, the Sub-Committee remained concerned that the Premises would still be operating reasonably late into the night and which gave rise to a risk of some impact on the CIZ, especially given that once patrons leave they would be outside of the Premises’ control. As patrons leave and disperse it is entirely conceivable and, in the Sub-Committee’s view, very likely, that there would be some additional noise impact on the CIZ. There would also be the additional footfall within the CIZ. The Sub-Committee noted also that the particular part of the CIZ in which the Premises were located was one of the worst areas for crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour.
In addition, the Sub-Committee was concerned that patrons not attending a pre-booked wine tasting or demonstration could still enter the Premises and order alcohol to consume on the Premises. The applicant had offered a condition that alcohol sales would be ancillary to food. However, the email in which this was offered referred to the fact that there was no kitchen and the only food that could be offered would be cold platters. This would be very different to a restaurant, for example, where the emphasis would clearly be on the food offering.
The Sub-Committee also carefully considered the fact that the application had been amended so that any licence granted would be time-limited. Whilst superficially attractive, the fact remained that there would still be an impact. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied, having regard to everything that it had heard and read, that the application justified an exception to the Policy. The Sub-Committee’s decision is therefore to refuse the application.
Therefore, Members made a unanimous decision to refuse the application.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a Time Limited Premises Licence for The East London Wineworks, Unit 5 (Ground Floor), The Huntingdon Estate, Ebor Street, London E1 6JU be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- East London Wineworks cover report, item 3.3 PDF 276 KB
- East London Wineworks Appendices Only, item 3.3 PDF 14 MB
- Supporting Doc 1 - East London Wines, item 3.3 PDF 770 KB