Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

·       Environmental Protection

·       Resident

·       Residents Association (SPIRE)

Ward: Spitalfields & Banglatown

The Sub-Committee noted from the report, that this was an application for a new premises licence for Baran Off Licence 18 Wentworth Street London E1 7TF, located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ).

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant applied for the following:

The licensable activities and timings that have been applied for the basement floor and ground floor are as follows:

The sale of by retail of alcohol (off sales only)

· Monday to Sunday, from 07:00 hrs to 23:00 hrs

The opening hours of the premises

 · Monday to Sunday, from 07:00 hrs to 23:00 hrs

The Sub-Committee noted that the representations made at the meeting by the Applicant’s licensing agent, Mr Berkpinar.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had agreed to reduce the hours sought by 1 hour taking the terminal hour for selling alcohol down to 22:00 hours.

The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s representation at the meeting that he would do his utmost to always adhere to the licensing objectives, and his assurance that there were enough measures in place to ensure the licensing objectives were met.

However, the Sub-Committee considered that whilst this might suffice for an application in respect of premises which were not in a CIZ, the premises in this instance were in a CIZ. Therefore, the onus lay upon the applicant to demonstrate what especial measures would be in place to ensure that, if granted, the application would not lead to an addition to the cumulative impact of crime and disorder, and public nuisance in the area. 

The Sub-Committee noted the representation made by Mr Thiel who was the Chair of SPIRE, a residents’ group, was also the ward chair for Spitalfields and Bangla Town who worked closely with the Council. The Sub-Committee noted Mr Thiel mentioning that there were social care providers within this ward who cater for people with alcohol-related issues The Sub-Committee noted Mr Thiel’s concerns expressed about anti-social behaviour, and crime and disorder in the area, as well as his concerns about a vast linkage between alcohol consumption and entertainment specifically within this area.

The Sub-Committee noted that this CIZ was one of the three highest priority spots within the last two years which is surrounded by three social care facilities with very vulnerable people overcoming addiction both alcohol and drugs. Having another set of premises from which these people could obtain alcohol was a concern.

The Sub-Committee were also entitled to note the written objection to the application by Mr Sehriban Moufid, even though the latter was not present at the meeting, since that objection was not invalidated by the objector’s absence from the meeting.

The Sub-Committee noted the representation made by Ms Cadzow about the addition to the cumulative impact of noise disturbance causing in the area.

The Sub-Committee noted that the only condition offered by the applicant to address noise disturbance was a proposal to have noise reduction measures to address public nuisance objectives, which was vague. It did not specify how the applicant was going to prevent public nuisance resulting from the noise caused by people entering and leaving the premises, and people loitering outside the premises. The applicant had provided insufficient to show how there would be no addition to the cumulative impact of noise disturbance, giving rise to public nuisance in that area.

The Sub-Committee noted from the representations of the Licensing Authority made by Mr Hussain, stated that the applicant had not shown what especial provisions he (the applicant) would have in place so as not to add to the cumulative impact in the area.

The Sub-Committee could not ignore the fact that the premises are in a CIZ. The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had overlooked the need to address the following, which are from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Statement of Licensing Policy, freely available for public view on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ website.

Paragraph 19.6 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Statement of Licensing Policy says, “The Special Cumulative Impact policy creates a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons against applications within the CIZ zones the application will be refused.”

Paragraph 19.7 of the same says, “Where representations have been received in respect to applications within the CIZ zones the onus is on applicants to adequately rebut the presumption. Applicants will need to demonstrate in their applications why the granting of their application will not negatively add to the cumulative already experience within the CIZ Zones.  Applicants may wish to address the following in their applications:

•         Genuinely exceptional circumstances,

•         Relevant good practices they employ (for example, this could include details of membership of local Pubwatch/other trade groups,

•         Accreditation of Award Schemes (as applicable), and any participation in Police/Council initiatives),

•         Other good operational/practice arrangements in respect of any outside drinking and smoking to control potential impact in the area,

•         Measures used to promote the licensing objectives (for example, any relevant conditions to control noise, dispersal, litter and other anti-social issues.”

Paragraph 19.8 of the same says, “This Policy will be strictly applied and where relevant representations are received it is the view of the Council that the application will be refused.  Applicants will need to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances and that granting their application will not negatively add to the cumulative effect on the Licensing Objectives within the Brick Lane and Bethnal Green CIZ if they wish to rebut this presumption.

Examples of factors the Licensing Authority may consider as exceptional may include, though are not limited to: 

•         small premises with a capacity of fifty persons or less who only intend to operate during Framework Hours,

•         premises which are not alcohol led and operate only within Framework Hours, such as coffee shops,

•         instances where the applicant has recently surrendered a licence for another premises of a similar size and providing similar licensable activities in the same Special Policy Area.

Examples of factors the Licensing Authority will not consider as exceptional include: 

•         that the premises will be well managed and run,

•         that the premises will be constructed to a high standard,

•         that the applicant operates similar premises elsewhere without complaint. “

The Sub-Committee felt that where premises are in a CIZ, applicants seeking a licence under the Licensing Act 2003 should be mindful of all the above implications and should address that in their proposed operating schedule. For the avoidance of doubt, an operating schedule which would be sufficiently robust for premises outside a CIZ, would not automatically suffice for premises in such a zone, if it does not address how a grant of the application will not result in an adding to the cumulative impact of crime and disorder, and public nuisance in that zone. The Sub-Committee reflected that it is open to applicants to seek professional advice on this, and yet when asked, the applicant said he had not done so.

The Sub-Committee considered that if they granted the application, they could not be confident that, it would not lead to an addition to the cumulative impact in the area.

Therefore, Members made a unanimous decision to refuse the application.

Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously;

That the application for a new premises licence in respect of Baran Off Licence 18 Wentworth Street London E1 7TF be REFUSED