Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Metropolitan Police

·       Environmental Protection

Ward: Bow East

Applicants Environmental Protection/Metropolitan Police

The Sub-Committee considered and application, an objection was made by the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Protection in respect of  TEN given by Rhys Rose for Boat Live, 90 White Post Lane, London, E9. The Metropolitan Police and Environmental Protection expressed concerns as to the risk of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. In brief, there were concerns about noise breakout from the premises, noise breakout from patrons in the yard, the lack of searching, security, CCTV, etc. and the suitability and safety of the site as PC Perry said that there appeared to still be rubble on top of which sand had been placed. There was at the time of his last visit on Friday 23^rd June no running water or electricity and no public liability insurance.

Other Party

Mr. Rose stated that the boat had been soundproofed and that at some point this needed to be tested. This was intended to be a test event. He was willing to work with the police and address their concerns e.g. by having mandatory searching. He told the LSC that the site had been levelled before sand had been put down, to create a chill-out area. Mr. Rose also spoke to his experience within the entertainment and licensing industry.

Mr. Rose further told the LSC that connections for the running water and electricity were being undertaken by the landlord starting yesterday and that he anticipated having the necessary certification in the next day or so. He then intended to have the appropriate level of public liability insurance. He had no intention of carrying on an event if these matters had not been addressed, hence the giving and withdrawing of previous TENs.

The Sub-Committee was concerned about the impact of public nuisance and crime and disorder.  The premises were located very close to residential blocks. It had been accepted that the boat could accommodate around forty to fifty people and the container in the yard the same. That meant potentially one hundred people in the yard, with the inevitable consequence of noise nuisance that could not really be effectively controlled. The Sub-Committee also were considered about the adequacy of soundproofing on the boat; it would have been helpful if Mr. Rose had contacted Ms. Cadzow in advance to try to test the efficacy of the soundproofing and perhaps assess an appropriate noise level. The Sub-Committee considered a degree of public nuisance to be inevitable and that was before one factors in the effects of intoxication and loud music.

Similarly, the Sub-Committee accepted that the likelihood of patrons attending with drugs and that the measures initially proposed by Mr. Rose would not be adequate. Again, music, large crowds and drink and drugs gave rise to a risk of an increase in crime and disorder.

In terms of the site itself, the Sub-Committee was not assisted by the lack of photos or other documentation. Given that this had been in issue previously, it would have been of real assistance to have seen up to date photos. However, the Sub-Committee accepted that the site was not completely finished and there was a possibility that the works being undertaken would not be completed in time and/or might not receive the appropriate certification. As the premises are not currently licensed, it is not possible to impose conditions on the TEN, were it to go ahead, and there was insufficient detail as to precisely how the event would be managed.

Decision

Having regard to the oral and written submissions, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that allowing the TEN to proceed would undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore to issue a counter-notice.