At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Brussels Wharf Market, Wapping Wall, London E1W 3SG. It was noted that objections had initially been received on behalf of officers from Environmental Health and the Licensing Authority in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. However, the Sub Committee were informed that prior to the meeting, the Environmental Health Officer had withdrawn their objection and had agreed to a condition. Ms Holland also referred the Sub Committee to the supplemental agenda circulated, which included supporting documents from the Applicant and from the Licensing Authority objecting to the licence.

At this point of the hearing, because the Applicant was facing an ongoing investigation into alleged offences in relation to the Licensing Act 2003, and bearing in mind the Applicant’s legal rights in that regard, Ms Holland read out to the Applicant from page 3 of the Supplemental agenda, the caution that he did not have to say anything, but it may harm his defence if he did not mention, when questioned, something which he may later  rely on in court and that anything he did say may be given in evidence.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Julian Overton, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that the market was a weekly run market operating on Saturdays, it was a popular market and had support from local businesses and residents. The market was not alcohol led, any non-regulated music and regulated entertainment was ancillary to the market trade, and that there had been no reported public nuisance or issues since they had been trading. He then referred Members to the supplemental agenda at pages 9-17 which included character references for the Applicant.

Mr Overton pointed out that there had been no representations against the granting of the application from the Police or local residents during the consultation period. It was noted that representations received from Environmental Health relating to noise nuisance were no longer being pursued, as the Applicant had agreed to the condition proposed by Environmental Protection.

Mr Overton suggested that the Licensing Authority’s objection related to crime, rather than crime and disorder, and that it related to the conduct of the Applicant in the way that they applied themselves to the market and the temporary events notices (TEN) process. Mr Overton presented the Applicant as having found the temporary event notice application process extremely difficult tp understand, so that he had not got things right, and found the process and rules confusing, with applications being rejected. Mr Overton further presented that the Applicant was therefore now seeking a premises licence because he had found that the temporary events notice process clearly had not worked well with the way in which he was conducting business, as was evident from the emails from the Licensing Authority and the inadvertent commission of an offence of trading without a TEN in December of last year.

Mr Overton then turned to the four Facebook posts in respect of which it was suggested by the Licensing Authority that the market had conducted licensable activities without a temporary events notice being in place. Mr Overton stated that this was not the case as they were advertisements for the market etc. and there was no evidence that the market operated on any of the days the Facebook posts were made. He pointed out that there were occasions where TEN applications were rejected, then granted so giving rise to confusion.

Turning to events on 3^rd December 2021, Mr Overton explained that the market had operated on that occasion without a TEN in place, but there had been a flaw in the application, so that a TEN was rejected very late in the day, whereupon the Applicant was fearful that he would let down suppliers, traders and customers, and therefore very foolishly allowed the market to trade. Mr Overton presented that the caution given to  the Applicant at the start of this hearing made it difficult for the Applicant to show his remorse, and therefore Mr Overton apologised for this breach on behalf of the Applicant.

At this point, Councillor Abdal Ullah, local Ward Councillor spoke in support of the application as a user and visitor of the market. He briefly expressed his support for the market, and gave examples of how the market was a safe and family friendly market bringing the Wapping community together. He explained how the market had made a positive impact on the area with a physical presence deterring any crime and disorder that had occurred in past years. The Applicant’s willingness to engage and help in community events was also mentioned by Councillor Abdal Ullah. 

Members then heard from Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer. He explained that the Licensing Authority was not against the market, but the objection was in relation to the complaints received. He referred to his representations on page 160 of the agenda and highlighted in respect of that, the non-compliances with the Licensing Act 2003. He said that on 3^rd December 2021, there was the sale of alcohol without a TEN in place, undermining the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder. He explained that on 2^nd December, Ms Kathy Driver emailed Mr Cutteridge in relation to the fact that the maximum number of TENs available for the year had been reached, and therefore no further TEN’s could be granted for the remainder of that year. Mr Ali pointed out that without a TEN, it remained open to an operator to supply  alcohol for free or to inform patrons that they could  bring their own alcohol,  since neither of those possibilities required a licence.  Mr Ali mentioned that this had been pointed out to the Applicant by email.

Mr Ali also mentioned the noise complaint of 30^th October 2021, and another complaint which was not on the Council system, but was sent directto the organisers on 26^th June 2021. The latter was not mentioned in Mr Ali’s representations, as it had been raised direct between a resident and the Applicant.

Mr Ali appreciated that the Applicant had obviously struggled in getting to grips with the licensing process. However, Mr Ali felt that the Licensing Act 2003 was clear, as were the reasons for compliance, and therefore he believed that if the application were granted, it would send out the wrong message.

Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer and witness called by the Licensing Authority started by clarifying the point that there was no TEN in place for 30^th October 2021, but the noise complaint was in relation to a band playing outside, and there was no mention of alcohol being sold on that day.

The Members were informed that Licensing Services received approximately 22 TEN applications from the 1^st December 2021 to 6^th December 2021, but the premises already had had 17 TENs, and the legal maximum was 20 TENs per year, hence the Applicant had reached their maximum. Members were informed that officers tried to work with the Applicant in relation to compliance  with the legislation. Due to the likely demand for licensable activities from patrons over the Christmas period, officers had worked with the Applicant in seeking to identify another plot of land, which could then  be treated as separate premises from Brussels Wharf, for the purposes of the maximum number of TENs permitted per premises.

Despite officers’ attempts to help the Applicant in this regard, the TEN application for 3^rd-5^th December 2021 was invalid, as it was not submitted within the required time limit, and therefore had been rejected. The Applicant had been advised of this, and had been advised not to carry out licensable activities, but when enforcement officers visited the market on 3^rd December 2021, they witnessed licensable activities being conducted there, despite that advice. 

In response to questions from Members the following was stated;

-       It was confirmed that there was no evidence that Easter Sunday trading had occurred.

-       That the applicant now having sought legal advice was clear on the policy and procedure for applying for TENs etc.

-       That there had been no objections from the police or residents.

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

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 made at the meeting by the Applicant’s Legal Representative, a Local Ward Councillor and Officers representing the Licensing Authority. 

The Sub-Committee noted the objections from the Licensing Authority, regarding the instances where the Applicant had traded without a Temporary Event Notice (TEN), and an instance of noise nuisance complaint.

The Sub-Committee noted the explanation given by the Applicant’s Legal Representative in relation to these objections from the Licensing Authority. The Sub-Committee noted the representation by the Applicant’s Legal Representative that he had fallen foul of what the Applicant’s Legal Representative described as bureaucratic complexities of licensing application process. The Sub-Committee also noted the Applicant’s Legal Representative pointing to the Applicant previously lacking legal advice and guidance.

The Sub-Committee were concerned about the management of the market, but were satisfied that with the benefit of the legal advice which he was now getting since the previous matters complained of by officers, the Applicant now had a better understanding of what was needed to comply with licensing requirements and what was required to uphold the licensing objectives. 

The Sub-Committee noted that there had been no complaints since 30^th October 2021, and representations by the Ward Councillor regarding the Applicant’s good character and community spirit.

The Sub-Committee considered that on the balance of probabilities, there was no evidence of crime and disorder or public nuisance since the dates of the matters complained of by objectors. The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the Applicant following his solicitor’s advice would uphold the licensing objectives, following the conditions proposed in the papers.

Therefore, Members made a decision and the decision was unanimous. Members granted the application with conditions.

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously

RESOLVED

That the application for a New Premises Licence for Brussels Wharf Market, Wapping Wall, London E1W 3SG be GRANTED with conditions. 

Sale of Alcohol (on and off sales)

Saturday from 10:00 hours – 17:00 hours

Regulated Entertainment in the form of live and recorded music (outdoors)

Saturday from 10:00 hours – 17:00 hours

Opening times

Saturday from 10:00 hours – 17:00 hours

Conditions

1. No more than 20% of the market stalls shall supply alcohol for on or off sales .

2. No open containers of alcohol shall be removed from the market perimeter.

3. Clear signage at point of sale and exit points informing customers that no open containers of alcohol shall be removed from the market perimeter.

4. That staff shall patrol the perimeter of the market to ensure that patrons with open containers do not leave the market perimeter.

5. A personal Licence holder is to be present on the premises at all times when alcohol is being supplied.

6. An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the local authority or the police. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following:

- Crimes reported to the venue

- Complaints received regarding crime and disorder.

- Any incidents of disorder

- Any refusal of the sale of alcohol.

- Complaints received relating to noise

- Any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

7. Premises management shall publicise and operate an attended telephone number by which any public noise enquiries and complaints can be made during the operating hours of the market. A written record of enquiries and complaints alongside details of the management actions taken in response shall be kept and made available to Officers of the Police or Council on request.

8. The sound level from any amplified live and recorded music shall remain within the control of the premises management at all times.

9. Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

10. All staff involved in the sale of alcohol shall be trained in the age check 'Challenge 25' policy. A record of their training, including the dates that each member of staff is trained, shall be available for inspection at the premises on request by the Council's authorised officers or the Police.

11. Age check or 'Challenge 25' signage shall be displayed at entrances to the premises, areas where alcohol is displayed for sale and at points of sale to inform customers that an age check 'Challenge 25' policy applies and proof of age may be required.

12. A register of refused sales of alcohol shall be maintained in order to demonstrate effective operation of the policy. The register shall be available for inspection at the premises on request by Council authorised officers or the Police.

13. While live or recorded music takes place, the licensee or management shall undertake regular monitoring of noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive locations.   A record shall be kept of monitoring, including the date, time and location or monitoring; the name of the monitor; and any action taken.  Music noise levels shall not be at a level to cause a nuisance to noise sensitive residential and commercial premises.   Records shall be kept for no less than six months and shall be made available upon request by a police officer or an authorised officer of Tower Hamlets Council.