Agenda item
Application for a new premises licence in respect of Blu Ivy Cafe, Block C 24 Stoneway Walk, E3 5SH
Licensing Objectives:
· Protection of Children from Harm
· Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Representations:
· Residents
Ward: Bow West
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Levent Demirci in respect of the Blue Ivy Café, Block C 24 Stoneway Walk, London, E3 5SH (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the Premises from 11:00 hours to 22:30 Monday to Saturday and from 11:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Sundays. The application attracted a number of representations against it, from local residents. These representations were based on all four licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee was informed that various conditions had been agreed with the responsible authorities. These included the keeping of refusals and incident logs, the supply of alcohol to be ancillary to a table meal, and the prohibition of vertical drinking.
Applicant
The applicant failed to attend the hearing. The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the relevant hearing notice had been sent. No response had been received from the applicant. There had been no communication to suggest whether they would or would not be attending. The Sub-Committee was informed of its power to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the applicant and Members chose to do so.
Residents
Given the number of representations and that many of them were similar, the Sub-Committee heard from two of the residents, Ms. Eren and Mr. Rizvi, who spoke on behalf of all the objectors.
Ms. Eren expanded on her representation. She told the Sub-Committee that the Premises were located in a quiet area, which did not even have a convenience store. At night it was quiet. The area had the 8th highest alcohol-related crime in London and the 2nd highest rate of anti-social behaviour in London. The residents currently experienced vandalism, drug-taking and drinking in the local park.
Ms. Eren suggested that the Premises would not be able to comply with a table meal condition and suggested that they would be serving simply nibbles and lots of alcohol.
As to the use of the outside area, she queried who would be enforcing that after 21:00 hours and asserted that the number of smokers permitted (10) was an arbitrary figure. She said it amounted to 42% of the interior capacity.
Ms. Eren also told the Sub-Committee that lots of under-age drinking took place in the area and that the existence of a licensed premises would attract younger people to the area to drink. She suggested that this would inevitably also lead to drug use. Ms. Eren further spoke to issues relating to planning, such as the permitted operating time. She was informed by the legal adviser that licensing and planning are separate regimes and that if a licence was granted as sought and planning only allowed the Premises to operate to 22:00 hours, then the Premises would be bound to adhere to the planning condition.
Mr. Rizvi expanded upon his representation. He also referred to alleged breaches of planning conditions but emphasised his view that this went to the trust that could be placed in the proprietor to adhere to any licensing conditions. He told the Sub-Committee that there was often Blue Ivy branded litter lying around the area. When he mentioned this to the Premises staff, he was told that they had no interest in dealing with that. He also suggested that the waste bins were overflowing with commercial waste and which impacted upon the residents’ ability to dispose of their own waste. When Premises’ staff were challenged, the response would be verbal or physical abuse.
Other issues included cars idling late at night which were linked to the Premises. Street furniture was left outside constantly, as was rubbish. Mr. Rizvi said that there had also been problems with noise breakout from the Premises when they played music. He said he had also witnessed near-misses in the parking areas.
Other issues alleged were opportunistic thefts and the general design of the area, which was off-road with one access by road and three by foot, which made it easy for gangs to scatter without being followed. It was suggested that these problems would increase if the licence were to be granted.
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee did not consider that the other licensing objectives were properly engaged. The public safety objections seemed to be related to the risk of patrons falling into the water after they have left the Premises. However, that is not a matter for the Premises given that patrons would be out of their direct control after they leave. Similarly, the suggestion that the licence, if granted, would attract under-age drinkers to the area or cause them to take drugs was fanciful and unsupported by evidence.
The Sub-Committee noted that some of the concerns raised seemed to be problems that existed already and were entirely separate from and unrelated to the Premises. The suggestion, for example, that thefts from balconies were likely to increase or that vandalism would do so if the Premises were allowed to sell alcohol was unrealistic.
The Sub-Committee accepted, however, that there was a risk of increased public nuisance, particularly later at night. The location apparently made noise more likely to reverberate in the area, causing disturbance. The Sub-Committee accepted that there could be increased noise outside when patrons went to smoke or when they left and that alcohol did tend to make people louder.
The Sub-Committee noted the suggestion that failing to comply with the planning conditions meant that they could repose less confidence in the management of the Premises to adhere to the licensing conditions. The Sub-Committee was not assisted in this regard by the failure of the applicant to appear. Given that there was nothing to contradict these assertions, that was a matter of some concern to the Sub-Committee. Similarly, the suggestion that the Premises had no qualms about leaving litter and other waste around, which would blight the area, and that they abused residents when confronted, did not give the Sub-Committee any confidence in their willingness to comply with any conditions that might be imposed.
The Sub-Committee noted further that some of the written representations referred to music noise and which it is said they’ve needed to ask staff to turn down. Whilst it may be that the Premises would nonetheless benefit from the deregulation provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, if there is a need to frequently request that music be turned down, it calls into question the willingness and ability of the management and staff to be mindful of the impact on the neighbouring community and that the risk is that any impact on public nuisance will not be mitigated.
Decision
The Sub-Committee considered the application and the agreed conditions. Whilst additional conditions were potentially available, such as the imposition of a litter-cleaning regime, it had no basis for being sure that this would be adhered to by the applicant. It was not open to the Sub-Committee to exclude the sale of alcohol from the scope of the licence since that would amount to a refusal. The conditions for refusing to specify the proposed designated premises supervisor were not met. In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the only appropriate and proportionate step that could be taken on the information before it was to refuse the application.
Supporting documents: