Agenda item
Application for a Premises Licence for (Boat Live), 90 White Post Lane, London E9 5EN
Licensing Objectives:
· Prevention of crime and disorder,
· Prevention of public nuisance and public safety
Representations:
· Resident (one)
· Environmental Protection
· Health & Safety
· Licensing Authority
· Met Police Licensing
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Boat Live Works Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Boat Live, 90 White Post Lane, London, E9 5EN (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol from 10:00 hours to 23:00 hours Sunday to Wednesday and from 10:00 hours to 23:59 hours Tuesday to Saturday; the provision of regulated entertainment by showing of films from 10:00 hours to 22:00 hours seven days per week; and the provision of regulated entertainment by playing recorded music and the provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 hours to midnight on Thursday to Saturday. Non-standard timings were sought in respect of New Year’s Eve and on days preceding bank holidays. The Premises would close to the public thirty minutes after the cessation of licensable activities.
Representations against the application had been received from one local resident and from the police, Environmental Health, Health & Safety, and the Licensing authority. The representations were concerned with the likely impact, if the application were to be granted, on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety.
Other Party
The Sub-Committee heard from Rhys Rose on behalf of the applicant. After dealing with preliminary matters relating to documentation sent to some of the responsible authorities, he drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the fact that the representations against the application were very similar to those which had been made in respect of applications for counter-notices against a number of Temporary Event Notices (TENs) which had been given. Eventually a number of events proceeded under TENs and those had been successful.
A site visit with the responsible authorities had only been arranged for the day before the hearing and so it had not been possible to agree any additional conditions beyond those proposed in the operating schedule.
Mr. Rose indicated that the applicant was content for a condition to be imposed on the licence prohibiting the Premises from opening to the general public until a fire risk assessment had been completed. He also confirmed that he would cut out the central section of the boat to ensure that was safe.
If the licence was granted, it was intended that third-party food traders would be engaged. Mr. Rose offered a condition that traders would need to provide evidence of their food hygiene rating and to be rated at least three stars.
PC Perry had raised issues that people attending the temporary events had not been searched. Mr. Rose stated he had found the CCTV footage and sent that to PC Perry and it did show evidence of searches being carried out.
Mr. Rose also confirmed that the applicant was content to have a condition requiring 1 member of SIA staff per 100 people for ticketed events. PC Perry and Nicola Cadzow had raised concerns that the sound limiter was accessible and could be re-set by DJs and others. Mr. Rose was content for a condition to be imposed that the sound limiter be kept in a locked cabinet. In addition, the applicant was happy to reduce the hours sough to framework hours in relation to the sale of alcohol and to remove the request for non-standard timings.
PC Mark Perry addressed the Sub-Committee. He queried whether the applicant could be trusted to operate safely in a busy nighttime economy area and he drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to Page 232 of the report pack, detailing issues arising from a recent operation in the area. He had two main concerns. The first was the location itself, which was close to residential properties. The application was effectively for two “mini nightclubs”, namely the boat and a container. He did not consider that the licensable activities could take place without causing a noise nuisance. He accepted that the temporary events had not given rise to any reported problems. However, he submitted that there was a difference between an occasional event taking place under a TEN and licensable activity taking place daily under a premises licence.
He was concerned that the CCTV footage he had viewed did not show effective searching being carried out. What was done was sporadic and poor quality. He also referred to someone leaving the Premises with what he believed to be alcohol. The CCTV coverage itself was not sufficient and the searches were not being done in full view of the CCTV. That put both patrons and the Premises’ staff at risk. He was concerned that the plans did not show staff locations and that there was reference to a control room which did not exist.
Metropolitan Police
PC Perry accepted that there had been some improvements since the application had first been made. However, he was not yet satisfied that what had been implemented would allow the Premises to operate safely and in his view the application ought to be refused.
Licensing Authority
Lavine Miller-Johnson addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. She explained that her representation had originally been made on 6th April 2023 and had been re-submitted when the consultation was extended in June. At that time, the site was not ready to be opened to the public. Photos taken at the site visit the day before this hearing showed that the site had come a long way. However, there remained a number of concerns to be addressed with respect to health and safety matters.
Ms. Miller-Johnson confirmed that the temporary events had operated in August and September without problems. She informed the Sub-Committee that the capacity under the TENs had been 125 persons. However, a premises licence was different to a TEN and there was insufficient clarity about how those larger numbers of patrons would be managed.
Specific concerns that Ms. Miller-Johnson had included: the ground outside still being uneven and posing a potential trip hazard and patrons needing to be warned; CCTV cameras in the external areas needing to be relocated and a lack of CCTV inside the boat; sand getting onto the stairs in the boat and causing a potential slip hazard; inside the boat there was a low wall behind which a seating area was located and the only means of access was by stepping over the wall, again posing a hazard to patrons; finally, there was an exit which had a very low beam and which gave rise to a risk of patrons hitting their heads. Ms. Miller-Johnson told the Sub-Committee that she was only 5’2” and nearly hit her head.
Environmental Protection
Onouha Olere addressed the Sub-Committee with respect to the Environmental Health Service’s representation. The representation concerned noise complaints and poor soundproofing when the boat was sited at a different location. He noted that the sound limiter was not locked away. He was also concerned about the potential for noise nuisance from patrons in the external area and suggested, if the licence were to be granted, a limit of fifty persons in this area at any one time.
Health and Safety
Geraldine O’ Grady addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Health and Safety Team. She had been concerned about the safety of the site, having seen the photographs, particularly with respect to means of escape in case of emergency. She had also visited the site the previous day and noted some improvements having been made. However, she remained unsatisfied that the site was sufficiently safe at this stage.
Ms. O’ Grady informed the Sub-Committee that there was a metal structure in the yard area which, combined with the uneven surface, posed a trip hazard especially when one factors in alcohol and darkness. The means of access between the lounge and the external area had a high step between them, which posed a trip hazard and did not allow for safe egress in the event of an emergency.
Ms. O’ Grady also expressed concerns as to how many people could be accommodated safely within the boat and how the boat could be safely evacuated. It was not clear what the fire risk assessment was in this regard.
Ms. O’ Grady referred to the fact that a fire risk assessment had been carried out in June or July yet it had not been made available.
The boat itself had limited ventilation. Ms. O’ Grady was concerned as to how hot it might get with all the doors and windows closed as there was only one small vent.
Finally, she noted that the main electrical board installation had been certified. However, there were other parts of the installation that had yet to tested.
Ms. Whatters, the local resident who had made a representation, did not attend. Her representation referred to the general problems in the area that were linked to venues of this nature. These included drug-dealing, nitrous oxide sellers, loud music and drunk and disorderly behaviour. She also stated that the venue had caused a noise nuisance in the previous summer.
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. The Sub-Committee noted that this application had been made some months earlier and a lot of the information provided in the report pack had not been updated since. However, the Sub-Committee was given an oral update by the parties and some additional material had been provided shortly before the hearing. The Sub-Committee was assisted as well by there being some matters of agreement between the parties.
With respect to public nuisance, there was no updating information from the Environmental Health Service as to soundproofing. The Sub-Committee was aware this had been an issue in the past. The fact that events had proceeded under TENs indicated the possibility that the soundproofing was sufficient. The Sub-Committee would have expected there to be evidence of complaints if not. However, it was not certain that this was the case nor that there would not be nuisance with the larger numbers of people that might be accommodated under the premises licence.
Some other matters raised as to public nuisance, such as the sound limiter not being locked away, could be appropriately dealt with by way of a condition requiring it to be in a locked cabinet.
Similarly, there was limited evidence of the impact on crime and disorder and the Premises would not be operating late into the night. Whilst the Sub-Committee noted the concerns around the area generally and the problems arising from late-night venues, the Premises would be closed earlier than other nearby venues. The Sub-Committee noted PC Perry’s concerns regarding searches and the placement of CCTV. However, these too could be addressed by way of conditions. The Sub-Committee was nonetheless concerned that the Premises could add to the issues experienced in this area, given that the venue was a nightclub-type venue.
The Sub-Committee was, however, particularly concerned by the safety issues. There was a real lack of clarity as to the safe capacity of the venue, both for fire risk purposes and more generally. There were trip hazards in the courtyard which, combined with alcohol and darkness, gave rise to an increased risk to public safety. The lack of clarity as to whether or not a fire risk assessment had been carried out was also a concern. Ms. O’ Grady understood one to have been carried out but had not seen it. An email sent by Mr. Rose in the early hours of the day of the hearing suggested a condition to require the provision of an updated fire risk assessment. If an assessment had already been carried out and needed further updating, it suggested to the Sub-Committee that the first one was not appropriate.
Similarly, there were concerns over parts of the electrical installation, which Mr. Rose suggested be dealt with by way of a condition. The Sub-Committee also noted the slip and trip hazards in the boat which had also concerned the responsible authorities and which Mr. Rose accepted would be addressed.
The Sub-Committee noted that some of these matters too could be subject to conditions. It was accepted that there had been improvements to the site. However, the Sub-Committee shared the concerns of the responsible authorities that these did not go far enough to allay their concerns with particular regard to the public safety licensing objective. The Sub-Committee were of the opinion that there remained a degree of disorganisation about the Premises and the application and the fact that a number of these issues still remained so long after the application had been submitted did not give the Sub-Committee confidence that, if the licence were granted, these would be addressed before the Premises opened to the public. Whilst the TEN regime is intended as a light touch regime, the Sub-Committee must look much more closely at a premises licence application. If the safety matters were not addressed, the public would be put at risk.
Decision
The Sub-Committee understood that Mr. Rose would not be present at all times that events or licensable activity was being carried on. Whilst the Sub-Committee had been made aware of his experience, Members were concerned that other, less-experienced, personnel might be in charge of the Premises regularly. That too risked adversely impacting upon the licensing objectives.
Having regard to everything that it had heard, the Sub-Committee considered that granting the licence would be likely to undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety. The Sub-Committee considered the use of conditions. However, whilst conditions would be appropriate to deal with some matters, such as the sound limiter, the Sub-Committee’s concerns were not sufficiently mitigated by conditions in respect of all the issues raised, particularly those relating to public safety. The application is therefore refused.
Supporting documents: