Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for Monks, 32 Cheshire Street, London E2 6ER
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 Monks, 32 Cheshire Street, London E2 6ER. It was noted that objections had been received from Officers representing the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Jessica Collins, Applicant explained that initially she had thought the premises was in a good location. However, upon visiting the premises, she found it to be in bad condition, not fit for purpose and had poor sound insulation as she could hear the neighbours who lived above the premises. She expressed strongly that she would not comply with some of the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities and that the premises were not suitable to operate as a bar.
Ms Collins also explained that she did not wish to agree to a condition for drinks to be consumed whilst seated and could not accept a condition prohibiting vertical drinking either, as she wanted to operate as a bar and therefore wanted customers to drink at the bar. She also wanted to have live music performances at the premises. Due to the nature of the intended business, Ms Collins told the Sub-Committee that she foresaw there would be complaints and problems with neighbours as there was no sound proofing at the premises. Ms Collins did state that she would be willing to install CCTV cameras at the premises as agreed in consultation with the Police.
At this juncture the Chair suggested to Ms Collins that if she were in so much doubt about the suitability of the premises for her business, its fitness for purpose, and her willingness to comply with conditions likely to be attached to the premises licence if granted, she might wish to consider withdrawing her application.
Ms Collins was adamant that she wished to continue with the premise licence application, but repeated that she did not agree with a prohibition on vertical drinking. However, she did agree to install CCTV cameras and adhere to a condition to limit the number of smokers to smoke outside the premises. She said the walls were thin and noise would most definitely emanate from the premises. Ms Collins concluded that the hours applied for were modest between 4pm to 10pm, and her business would be operating as a bar and playing live music, with a capacity for 25 people.
Members then heard from Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer., She said that the premises was in the cumulative impact zone (CIZ) and told the Sub-Committee that on a balance of probability, the Authority was concerned by the addition of another set of premises selling alcohol, potentially adding to the existing anti-social issues in the area, particularly through access and egress.
The Sub-Committee noted Ms. Miller-Johnson’s concerns that Ms. Collins did not accept some of the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities. She acknowledged that the hours were within the framework hours. However not much information was provided about the applicant’s experience or knowledge of operating a licensed venue, which was a particular concern as the premises were in the CIZ. She also highlighted the fact that from the plans, it was clear that the basement would not form part of the licensed area. Ms Miller-Johnson stated that the premises was in a residential area which experiences high levels of public nuisance, and crime and disorder.
Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer referred to her representations on page 97 on the agenda, and explained that her objection related to the prevention of public nuisance and noise that could cause disturbance from within and outside the premises. She stated that the premises was in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone and that there was insufficient information in the operating schedule to show how the applicant would promote the licencing objective of preventing of public nuisance, especially given the likely increased footfall in the CIZ.
She expressed her concern about live music being played at the premises, and the potential noise outbreak from the premises which would likely disturb the occupants of nearbyresidential properties. Ms Cadzow asked Members to consider imposing the conditions she proposed in her representation if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application.
In response to questions from Members, the following was noted :-
- That the applicant was not willing to install sound proofing as she had a short lease and did not want to invest any money in the premises.
- The applicant said she would approach the landlord to see if sound insulation works could be carried out by him.
- The applicant said she was not confident that she would be able to promote the licensing objectives, in particular public nuisance as the premises were located in a small road, and any noise would bounce off the walls, causing noise nuisance.
- Upon questioning the applicant, she confirmed that she was not willing to comply with all the proposed conditions set by the responsible authorities such as a prohibition of vertical drinking, installation of noise limiters etc.
- The Chair gave Ms Collins a further opportunity to withdraw the application, but she stated that she did not wish to withdraw the application, yet expressed that she would not commit to all of the conditions proposed if the application were granted, despite the Chair pointing out to Ms Collins that if the application were granted, Ms Collins could be prosecuted if any conditions of the licence were not complied with.
- That live music would involve only acoustic music being played and not amplified music.
- That the applicant was agreeable to allow drinking up time and stopping serving alcohol half an hour before closing.
There were no concluding remarks made by any of the 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 Sub-Committee considered an application by Jessica Collins for a new premises licence in respect of Monks, 32 Cheshire Street, London E2 6ER (“the Premises”). The application sought to permit the sale of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment by way of recorded music to 22:00 hours Wednesday to Sunday. The application attracted objections from Environmental Protection and from the Licensing Authority.
The Sub-Committee heard from Ms. Collins that the Premises had no sound insultation, was poorly designed and would cause noise nuisance to neighbouring residents, if she was to be granted a licence and operated as a bar. She accepted the issues raised by the responsible authorities and was of the view that the premises were unsuitable for the business she intended to operate, a small bar with live acoustic music events. She also stated that she did not accept some of the suggested conditions proposed by the responsible authorities, in particular the condition for no vertical drinking, as Ms. Collins wanted customers to be able to enjoy a drink whilst standing at the bar.
The Sub-Committee also took into account that Ms. Miller-Johnson, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, told the Sub-Committee that on a balance of probability, the Authority was concerned by the addition of another premises selling alcohol, potentially adding to the existing anti-social issues in the area, particularly through access and egress. The Sub-Committee noted Ms. Miller-Johnson’s concerns that Ms. Collins did not accept some of the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities.
The Sub-Committee took into consideration, Ms. Cadzow’s concerns along the same lines, as well as Ms. Cadzow’s concerns as to the lack of insufficient information in the operating schedule showing how the premises would be operated in such a way as to uphold the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee was very concerned about the Applicant’s lack of commitment and effort in upholding and promoting the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee acknowledged the fact that the premises may require added features installed at the premises in order for it to be fit for purpose but no commitment to carry out any works to the premises was demonstrated by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee were also very concerned that the Applicant repeatedly indicated that were she to be granted her application, she would not comply with conditions sought by the responsible authorities, even though the Chair pointed out that in the event of a grant of the licence sought, all of those conditions might be attached and any non-compliance could then result in Ms. Collins’ prosecution.
The Sub-Committee noted that whilst the Chair repeatedly gave the Applicant opportunity to consider withdrawing the application, on the basis from her comments, the Applicant did not appear to be serious about supporting the licensing objectives and what it took to make her application work, the Applicant was adamant about proceeding with her application, despite the responsible authorities’ concerns that operating a premises licence at that particular premises would give rise to public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied that the Applicant would uphold and promote the licensing objectives, particularly since she had expressed that if the application were granted, she would not comply with conditions likely to be attached to the licence. The Sub-Committee therefore decided to refuse the application.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a new Premises Licence for Monks, 32 Cheshire Street, London E2 6ER be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: