Agenda item
Temporary Event Notice for Boat Live, 90 White Post Lane Hackney Wick London E9 5ENA
Licensing Objectives:
· The prevention of public nuisance
· The prevention of crime and disorder
Representations:
· Metropolitan Police
· Environmental Protection
Ward: Bow East
Decision:
In considering this application, the Sub-Committee have regard to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm, public safety, as well as the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s guidance.
In particular, the Sub-Committee considered the implications of what was said and written by the parties in relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.
The Sub-Committee appreciated that work had been done in relation to the boat, and that as the police indicated, the police have no current safety concerns.
However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that whilst Mr. Rose had assured them that there will be a security policy and dispersal plan, there was no evidence of these before the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied that there were adequate measures in place to address public safety.
The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not produced any evidence of adequate measures to prevent noise breakout, not only in relation to music, but also in relation to a significant number of patrons attending as well as going to and from the event.
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns about this expressed by the police and Environmental Health.
The Sub-Committee noted that according to the police, there was a poor track record in relation to crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance relating to past events.
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 ensuring public safety. The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore to issue a counter-notice.
The Sub-Committee would ask all the parties to note that although TENs are a light touch regime and the engagement that might be expected in respect of a TEN may often be less than that for a new premises licence application, there have now been a considerable number of TENs sought for these premises, generally all of a similar nature. All of those have attracted objections from the police and environmental health.
The apparent lack of dialogue between the parties potentially means that there is no scope for any compromise because once the application for a counter-notice comes before the Sub-Committee, we can only consider the TEN as given and cannot change any aspect of it.
The Sub-Committee would like to remind the police and Environmental Health of their ability to engage with the premises user in the representations period and modify the TEN as they think appropriate which, if accepted, will result in the withdrawal of their objection. Equally, the premises user has been informed that it may not be the best course of action to give the TEN on the basis of the event being a test, rather than seeking to work with environmental health beforehand so that, for example, appropriate sound levels might be set. The Sub-Committee notes that such dialogue may not resolve matters. However, it might well assist in narrowing the issues which the Sub-Committee can focus upon.
Minutes:
In considering this application, the Sub-Committee have regard to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm, public safety, as well as the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s guidance.
In particular, the Sub-Committee considered the implications of what was said and written by the parties in relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.
The Sub-Committee appreciated that work had been done in relation to the boat, and that as the police indicated, the police have no current safety concerns.
However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that whilst Mr. Rose had assured them that there will be a security policy and dispersal plan, there was no evidence of these before the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied that there were adequate measures in place to address public safety.
The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not produced any evidence of adequate measures to prevent noise breakout, not only in relation to music, but also in relation to a significant number of patrons attending as well as going to and from the event.
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns about this expressed by the police and Environmental Health.
The Sub-Committee noted that according to the police, there was a poor track record in relation to crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance relating to past events.
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 ensuring public safety.
The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore to issue a counter-notice.
The Sub-Committee would ask all the parties to note that although TENs are a light touch regime and the engagement that might be expected in respect of a TEN may often be less than that for a new premises licence application, there have now been a considerable number of TENs sought for these premises, generally all of a similar nature. All of those have attracted objections from the police and environmental health.
The apparent lack of dialogue between the parties potentially means that there is no scope for any compromise because once the application for a counter-notice comes before the Sub-Committee, we can only consider the TEN as given and cannot change any aspect of it.
The Sub-Committee would like to remind the police and Environmental Health of their ability to engage with the premises user in the representations period and modify the TEN as they think appropriate which, if accepted, will result in the withdrawal of their objection.
Equally, the premises user has been informed that it may not be the best course of action to give the TEN on the basis of the event being a test, rather than seeking to work with environmental health beforehand so that, for example, appropriate sound levels might be set. The Sub-Committee notes that such dialogue may not resolve matters. However, it might well assist in narrowing the issues which the Sub-Committee can focus upon.
Supporting documents: