At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London E1 6LS. It was noted that objections had been received by the Environmental Health Officer. It was also noted that the hours had been reduced.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Whitney Warren, Events Manager for Toynbee Hall, explained that she would be the designated premises supervisor if the application were to be granted. She gave a brief history of the venue and its mission to support charity organisations to help break down socioeconomic barriers. She explained that the venue currently hosted general events, product launches and weddings to generate income for the running of the venue and for charitable organisations. It was noted that currently promotors or venue hirers bring their own drinks to the venue, and they therefore wanted the opportunity to sell alcohol and generate more revenue to put towards their charitable objectives.

Ms Warren stated that she aware that the premises was in the cumulative impact zone (CIZ) but claimed that the venue was not alcohol-led and the nature of the venue would mitigate any impact of granting a premises licence in the CIZ. She said that the clients were currently able to being alcohol into the venue and therefore there would not be an additional impact, nor was there any impact currently. She said in order to address concerns of public nuisance, they had agreed to conditions to have no loud speakers and would manage noise emanating from the premises, there would be no off sales of alcohol to customers or members of the public and that staff were aware of the list of attendees attending any events at the venue. 

Members then heard from Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer who referred to her objection on page 137 and explained that when she received the application, she considered the licensing objective of public nuisance. Whilst asking for lesser hours which were within the Council’s framework hours the applicants had not liased with her and there was insufficient information in the application to demonstrate how another licensed premises would not negatively impact on the area. She did not consider that the application had properly addressed issues of noise disturbance from ingress and egress or to prevent people loitering outside the Premises. In respect of further conditions offered by the applicant (at Page 139 of the report pack) Ms. Cadzow suggested some amendments in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.

In response to questions the following was noted;

-       That the garden area outside the premise was a public place and could not be managed by staff at the venue.

-       Concerns were raised about a local primary school being very close to the premises. However, it was confirmed that the school was behind the estate in which the venue was in. 

-       That a security team would be onsite during any events and all events would be risk assessed, there would be access to CCTV footage on request by officers of the Council or the police.

-       Currently operating a bring your own policy at the venue during events and having a premises licence with conditions would in fact regulate and manage drinking on the premises. 

-       That the main purpose for the sale of alcohol was to generate more income for the venue and for charitable organisations.

-       It was noted that opening hours would remain the same as originally applied for - 07:00 to 23:00 hours.

-       The request for off sales was for seasonable events taking place outside the venue to allow flexibility, but the applicant was agreeable for this aspect to be removed if members were not minded to grant the application. 

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 licensing objectives:

1. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
2. Public Safety;
3. The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
4. The Protection of Children from Harm.

Consideration

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Toynbee Hall Trading Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LS (“the Premises”). The application originally sought authorisation for the sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the Premises from 07:00 hours to 23:00 hours seven days per week. This was subsequently amended to 11:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and to 11:00 hours to 22:30 hours on Sunday. The Sub-Committee was informed that a number of conditions had been agreed with the police.

The application attracted one representation against the grant of a licence. This was from the Environmental Health Service on the basis of public nuisance and that the Premises are located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ).

The Sub-Committee heard from Whitney Warren and Howard Jackson on behalf of the applicant. The Sub-Committee was told that the aim of the application was to maximise the income of the Premises so that it could be redistributed to help meet their charitable objectives. The application would permit them to hold more weddings and other events, which would generate more revenue. The client base was mostly corporate and commercial clients.

Ms. Warren appreciated that the Premises were located within the CIZ but told the Sub-Committee that the nature of the Premises and the fact that alcohol could be brought in by patrons in any event meant that there would be no additional impact. She also informed the Sub-Committee that measures proposed, such as a condition prohibiting loudspeakers being placed outside, ensured that there would be no additional impact. Patrons would be monitored during ingress and egress. They were willing to have no off-sales at weddings and private events. Ms. Warren said that they did not sell to the general public. Events were pre-planned and risk-assessed.

Nicola Cadzow, on behalf of the Environmental Health Service spoke to her representation. Whilst the application sought framework hours, she considered that there was some ambiguity within the application. For example, a condition dealing with noise and vibration was, she felt, expressed in very general terms. She did not consider that the application had properly addressed issues of noise disturbance from ingress and egress or to prevent people loitering outside the Premises. In respect of further conditions offered by the applicant (at Page 139 of the report pack) Ms. Cadzow suggested some amendments in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application. These were:

Condition 1   Loudspeakers not to be located in the entrance lobby or outside at any time rather than outside of office hours;

Condition 2   To apply when regulated entertainment was being carried on rather than “when loud noise is occurring”

Condition 4   To limit the number of smokers to five to eight persons

Condition 5   That there be no noise rather than that reasonable efforts be made to ensure that there was no noise.

These amendments were discussed with the applicant who expressed that there could be difficulty with some e.g. the garden in front of the Premises was public property. Mr. Jackson said that they would do what they could to minimise noise but was concerned that in some respects they would be required to ensure that something did or did not happen.

The Council’s legal adviser discussed the matter of sales of consumption off the Premises as it was unclear, if there would be no off-sales at weddings or private parties or to the general public, when there would be off-sales. The applicant confirmed that if the Sub-Committee was minded to permit sales for consumption on the Premises on this would not be an issue.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application, which engaged the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. It noted that the application was for framework hours and that the Premises would not be alcohol-led. The location of the Premises within the CIZ meant that it was for the applicant to demonstrate that there would be no additional impact upon the licensing objectives in an already saturated area. Notwithstanding the nature of the Premises, the grant would most likely result in more events taking place at the Premises. Many of those patrons would no doubt be drinking. This in itself gave rise to a greater likelihood, after some of those events, of patrons exiting the Premises and entering other venues in the night-time economy.

Similarly, notwithstanding efforts and conditions to mitigate the potential impacts, the Sub-Committee considered that some impact was likely. Although the Premises would not be operating in the same way that a pub or club might, the Sub-Committee noted that this was not a small venue. The venue would be used for events of a celebratory nature and where large numbers of the patrons present were likely to be drinking. The events would accommodate up to 300 patrons and at such events there was a greater likelihood of people dispersing in masses at the end of the event. This was, in the Sub-Committee’s view, very likely to impact upon the area in the form of noise nuisance, especially when some of those patrons would most likely be intoxicated. Outside of the immediate vicinity of the Premises they would be outside the control of the Premises.

The Sub-Committee did not consider that the impact on the CIZ could be effectively mitigated by the imposition of conditions and it has determined that the only appropriate and proportionate step for the promotion of the licensing objectives was to refuse the application.

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;

RESOLVED

That the application for a New Premises Licence for Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London E1 6LS be REFUSED.