Agenda item
Application to Review the Premises Licence for Cabby's Rum Bar, Railway Arch 411, St Paul's Way, London E3 4AG
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises licence for Cabby’s Rum Bar, Railway Arch 411, St Paul’s Way, London E3 4AG. It was noted that the review had been triggered by the Metropolitan Police and supported by a Ward Councillor on behalf of residents and Officers on behalf of the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, PC Mark Perry, Applicant and representing the Metropolitan Police, explained that the premises had its licence granted in September 2020, stating in the application that it was going to be a bar with no amplified music, yet complaints had been received from residents about the premises being used as a nightclub. He referred to his representation in the agenda and explained that police attending the venue had been met with hostility and have been refused entry into the premises. PC Perry stated that the premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor had shown contempt for local residents, and his obligations under both the premises licence and the Licensing Act 2003, as well as Tower Hamlets Council and the Police.
PC Perry highlighted the breaches of the licence and the undermining of the licensing objectives referred to his statement contained in the agenda pack on pages 44-47. He said that there had been an occasion when the gates to the premises had been padlocked to stop police from entering the premises, and this had been very dangerous. He concluded that there had been a number of breaches, not allowing police to enter the premises, any contact on the phone with the premise licence holder had been hostile and abusive and the premises had been operating badly with a lack of responsibility. Therefore, there was no confidence in the premises licence holder to operate a licensed premises, and therefore the Police were seeking a revocation of the premises licence.
Councillor David Edgar, Ward Councillor, referred to his representation on page 94 of the agenda and stated that he had been approached by residents with complaints about the premises. He said that he has had conversations with residents recently and the issues remained the same, with lots of noise nuisance, including that related to access and egress to and from the premises, customers urinating on the streets and traffic congestion as a result of large numbers of people attending the venue. It was noted that noise nuisance continues on to the early hours of the morning affecting nearby residents. It was also reported that when management are challenged they are responded to aggressively. Cllr Edgar stated that issues were still continuing and residents were doubtful that this would stop.
Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, explained that the licence was granted in 2020 and had come to the Licensing Authority’s attention when a complaint was received from a local councillor in May 2021 advising that a night club had opened up and was causing noise disturbance to local residents in the area and customers of the venue were using the resident car park.
Ms Driver highlighted that there was concern that a distillery at the premises were operating without a premises licence. Awarning letter was sent at the time and then application was made by the Licensee, which was later granted in August 2020. She explained that there were two units operating; unit 412 was where the distillery was located and unit 411 was the premises from which alcohol was being sold and served. Further complaints had been received from residents from May 2021 onwards. Complaints also described the rowdy behaviour of customers who frequented the premises, urinating on the streets and create noise disturbance at the early hours of the morning.
It was also noted that staff were uncooperative with officers, that the premises was being advertised as a nightclub for parties and DJs. Ms Driver raised concern about the sub letting of the premises for parties and the distribution of alcohol from Unit 411 and concerns about possible unauthorised activities at Unit 412.
Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, referred to her representation on page 91-92 and explained that she had received several complaints since the premises had opened in September 2020 and there had been reports of it operating as a night club. The issues of loud music, public nuisance and customers urinating on the streets was noted. It was also noted that two visits were made at the premises in June and July and officers heard the loud music emanating from the premises which at the time was accepted by the applicant. A further complaint was made on 29th July 2021 as noise had persisted for 4 weeks and a further warning letter was issued.
She stated that due to the recent record, and the history of noise complaints received she did not believe that the licensing objectives of crime and disorder and public nuisance were being adhered to. It was noted that there was evidence to indicate that the premises played loud music and customers cause anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance to local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Adam Shaw, Legal Representative on behalf of the Premise Licence Holder explained that they would be willing to change the Designated Premises Supervisor. He clarified that the distillery was in unit 412 and the bar operated from Unit 411. It was noted that the licence had been operating for the last year and the distillery had been operating since 2016 and it was their view that this ought to continue. He referred to 8.3 of the report and stated that the licence should only be suspended or revoked if members believed that alternatives such as imposing additional conditions did not have a reasonable prospect of ensuring the licensing objectives would be met.
He said that there had been times where the operators had cooperated with the police and were willing to engage with residents and officers. He said the concerns about urination should not be solely linked to the customers of the premise and this could be related to groups of individuals that use the skate park which is opposite the premises. Mr Shaw explained that music has been turned down when requested and that the premises was not a night club, However, the applicant did allow a third party promoter to arrange events at the premises and this may have caused the problems that have been raised. He said that the licensee would be happy to have a condition not to allow third parties to hold any events at the premises. It was noted that the licensee was exploring the option to use the gym car park for customers and willing to work with police and residents. Mr Shaw put forward to Members the option of revoking all licensing activities for unit 411 and therefore not allowing it to operate as a bar but to allow the distillery in unit 412 to continue to operate with off sales only as that hadn’t caused any issues.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- The licensee claimed not to have operated beyond opening hours.
- That complaints from residents make reference to disturbance after midnight and early hours of the morning 4-5am.
- The licensable activities on the licence were till 11.30pm.
- In response to a question about future prevention of crime and disorder at the premise, the licensee stated that there were no issues at the venue and there has been no crime and disorder at the premises.
- New measures in place would be to have security officers at the gate and inside the premises.
- That police were not allowed entry at the premises during visits.
- That the Licensee was always present at the premises whilst it was operating.
- It was noted that out of the visits made at the premises and communication made with the licensee, only 1/3 of the time there had been compliance.
- That there were no issues during the visits made on 2nd and 3rd July 2021.
- The licensee claimed that the premises did not operate beyond hours but staff stayed behind every night to clean up etc.
- The general complaints from residents were related to noise nuisance, parking issues, challenging and aggressive behaviour from management and staff and customer urinating on the streets.
- That the licensee would no longer be the DPS and would appoint someone new for this role.
- That the capacity of the premises was 100.
- Concerns raised as to why the Licensee did not engage with officers and refused entry to police officers.
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
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 in person and virtually made by the Applicant, officers and ward councillor supporting the review application and from the premises licence holder and his Legal Representative.
The Sub-Committee heard an application for the review of the premises licence held by The Taxi Spirit Company Ltd. in respect of Railway Arch 411, St. Paul’s Way, London E3 4AG (“the Premises”). The application was brought on the basis of the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety.
The application generated representations in support from the Licensing Authority, the Environmental Health Service, and a ward councillor.
PC Perry referred to his written representation and the statements provided in support. Of particular concern was the fact that the licence had been granted only in September 2020 and that the operation of the Premises had generated a considerable number of complaints in a very short period of time. On at least two occasions, police had attended to find the gates to the Premises padlocked. As this was the only means of escape from the Premises the consequences of a fire or some other incident were potentially catastrophic. The management of the Premises were uncooperative with police officers. He had no confidence in the management to adhere to any conditions of the licence and sought revocation.
During questions, PC Perry confirmed that many of the incidents occurred after licensable activity should have ceased. He was asked why police had not used their powers of entry. He explained that the only way to have done that would have been to have cut off the padlock to the gates and that this risked inflaming the situation, especially given that there were some fifty people inside at the time. He did not accept that these were teething problems, as suggested on behalf of the operator.
Councillor David Edgar told the Sub-Committee he had been approached by a number of residents who had raised concerns about the operation of the Premises. As well as the complaints that had been made to the police, he had been told of incidents of public urination, patrons leaving the Premises in a noisy fashion late at night, patrons parking in a nearby car park for residents, as well as loud music emanating from the Premises. He told the Sub-Committee that residents continued to report problems to him. The noise was often reported as on-going to 02.00 hours but sometimes to as late as 04:00 hours or 05:00 hours. He was pessimistic as to the prospect of further conditions being complied with.
Kathy Driver, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, told the Sub-Committee that the Premises had first come to the Authority’s attention in May 2020 when the management made a query about the production of hand-sanitiser. That revealed the Premises to be operating as a distiller. That subsequently prompted the application for a premises licence.
Ms. Driver told the Sub-Committee that they were first made aware of complaints in May 2021, which referred to problems commencing in December 2020. It was said that the Premises was operating as a nightclub. The operation generated noise nuisance late at night, both from music and from patrons as they dispersed. Ms. Driver also referred in her representation to a number of complaints during June and July 2021, including the reports made by the police. She referred to a lack of co-operation with the responsible authorities by the Premises’ management. Whether or not it was a nightclub, it was clearly operating as some form of party venue. She confirmed that there had been no issues with regard to the off-sales. She too had no confidence in those managing the Premises to abide by the licence conditions.
Ms. Cadzow, on behalf of the Environmental Health Service, spoke briefly to her written representation, which addressed the concerns surrounding public nuisance caused by the operation of the Premises. She was aware of various complaints and told the Sub-Committee that a warning letter had been sent to the Premises.
Adam Shaw, solicitor on behalf of the Premises, clarified that the distillery was situated at Arch 412 and the Premises were located at Arch 411. Drinks from the distillery were shipped and packed from Arch 411. The distillery had been operating since 2018 with no issues. Mr. Shaw suggested that the distillery should be permitted to continue and that the Sub-Committee could impose additional conditions or to revoke the licence as far the operation of a bar was concerned but to allow the distillery to continue to operate.
Mr. Shaw told the Sub-Committee that some of the events had been outside of the control of the Premises’ management and that there had been occasions when Mr. Odong, the operator and DPS, had co-operated. This was accepted in part by PC Perry when the Sub-Committee asked questions of the parties, but he stated that on perhaps 2/3 of occasions there had been a lack of cooperation.
It was said that the Premises were not a nightclub and that many of the incidents were merely teething problems. Mr. Odong was looking at ways to resolve the parking problem, for example, by possibly arranging to use parking facilities at a nearby gym.
Mr. Odong told the Sub-Committee, during questions, that there were no crime and disorder issues at the Premises and that the Premises operated primarily as a restaurant. He denied that the Premises had operated outside its hours and confirmed that there had never been a time when the Premises had been operating without him being present. He suggested that at times when the police had attended after hours and people were present, it was staff cleaning after the Premises had closed.
Some of the events were claimed to be private parties, which was disputed by PC Perry and Ms. Driver, both of whom referred to the various flyers within the report pack.
This application engaged the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. The Sub-Committee noted that Mr. Odong denied most, if not all of the incidents. However, he clearly accepted that there were matters of concern, given that his solicitor referred to what he suggested were merely teething problems. Given the number of complaints, as well as the different sources for many of them, the Sub-Committee did not find Mr. Odong to be credible or his explanations to be plausible. Whether one called it a bar, nightclub, or similar, it certainly did not appear to be a restaurant. The Sub-Committee accepted it was a party venue of some kind. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the operation of the Premises had, almost since the start of its operation, undermined the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.
Similarly, the Sub-Committee considered it to be more likely than not, based on the flyers and other evidence, that the Premises had operated outside of its permitted hours. As that is, if proved, a criminal offence, the operation of the Premises similarly undermined the crime and disorder licensing objective.
The padlocking of the gates on some occasions was a matter of concern and clearly undermined the public safety licensing objective.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the options open to it. The Sub-Committee noted that there had been no concerns prior to the grant of the premises licence, save for one allegation made in April 2020 and about which the Sub-Committee was not in a position to determine. All of the parties, however, were clear that problems really began after the grant of the licence. The Sub-Committee understands the concerns of the responsible authorities that the management are unable to comply with the licence conditions and shares those concerns. The Sub-Committee did not have confidence in Mr. Odong and did not think that there were any conditions that would adequately address its concerns and allow the Premises to continue to operate as it does.
The Sub-Committee considered suspending or revoking the licence. However, this would impact on the distillery business, about which there were no concerns. The decision of the Sub-Committee was therefore to take action to prevent the Premises from operating as a bar. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that this would be appropriate and proportionate to ensure that the licensing objectives would be promoted. The decision is therefore to remove both regulated entertainment and late night refreshment from the scope of the licence, to impose a condition that all sales of alcohol are to be for consumption off the premises only, and to add a statement pursuant to s.177A(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 that s.177A does not apply to any condition on the licence that relates to live or recorded music.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a review of the Premises Licence for Cabby’s Rum Bar, Railway Arch 411, St Paul’s Way, London E3 4AG be GRANTED IN PART with a conditions.
To ROMOVE the following licensable activities from the premises licence;
· Late Night Refreshments
· The Provision of regulated entertainment (recorded music)
· On sales of alcohol
Additional Conditions to be added to the Premises Licence
1. All sales of alcohol are to be for consumption off the premises only.
2. A statement pursuant to s.177A(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 that s.177A does not apply to any condition on the licence that relates to live or recorded music.
Supporting documents:
- Cabbys Rum cover report, item 4.1 PDF 257 KB
- Cabbys Rum Appendices Only, item 4.1 PDF 8 MB
- Cabbys Rum Bar Supoorting Doc - Applicant, item 4.1 PDF 397 KB
- Cabbys Rum Bar Supoorting Doc - Objector EH, item 4.1 PDF 101 KB
- Cabbys Rum Bar Supoorting Doc - Objector Licensing Authority, item 4.1 PDF 869 KB