Agenda item
Application for variation of a Premises Licence for The Space Spitalfields, 44 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LT
Minutes:
At the onset of the meeting, Ms Simmi Yesmin, Democratic Services Officer informed the Sub Committee that no interested parties had registered to speak at the meeting and that all parties had been written to with the notification of the meeting and agenda within the agreed timescales. The applicant had confirmed that she would not be attending the meeting and did not wish to take part in the meeting virtually due to work commitments. However, she had sent in a statement for the Sub Committee to note – this was circulated to the Sub Committee.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for The Space Spitalfields, 44 Commercial Street, London E1 6LT. It was noted that objections had been received from a local resident and on behalf of a resident association in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.
The Chair stated that as sufficient notification of the meeting was given and since the Applicant had confirmed that they would not be attending, the meeting would go ahead in the absence of the Applicant and objectors, the merits of the case to be considered on the basis of the Applicant’s and objectors’ respective written submissions within the agenda pack when the Sub-Committee retired to deliberate upon the applications on the agenda for tonight’s Sub-Committee meeting..
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 as no interested party to the application was present at the meeting the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the written evidence before them, including the application, the representations made and the general advice and guidance contained in the agenda pack with particular regard to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of public disorder.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and so, the effect of a premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIZ is that there is 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.
The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee considered that the onus lay upon the Applicant to show through their operating schedule, with appropriate supporting evidence that the operation of the premises, if licensed, would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee noted the fact that the applicant did not attend the meeting despite receiving sufficient notification of the meeting and despite the applicant having been given the choice to join the meeting remotely in light of their belated email to the Committee Services Clerk expressing difficulties with attending in person. The applicant had not requested an adjournment of the meeting. The Sub-Committee went on to consider the application on the basis of what was in the papers, also noting that in the absence of the applicant, it was not possible to ask the applicant any questions, and so had to take all representations by all parties to this application as set out on the papers. The Sub-Committee considered that the application as it stood on the papers, did not show how the application, if granted, would not add to the above cumulative impact, particularly with regard to the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for The Space Spitalfields, 44 Commercial Street, London E1 6LT be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- The Space - cover report - 21 June 22, item 3.1 PDF 517 KB
- The Space - Appendices Only - 21 June 22, item 3.1 PDF 6 MB