Agenda item
Application for variation of a Premises Licence for Bar 104, 104 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL
Licensing Objectives:
· The prevention of public nuisance
Representations:
· Licensing Authority
· Environmental Protection
Ward: Spitalfields & Banglatown
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Bar 104 Ltd. to vary the premises licence held in respect of Bar 104, 104 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL (“the Premises”). The licence currently authorises the sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales) and recorded music from 11:00 hours to midnight seven days per week and late-night refreshment from 23:00 hours to midnight every day. The application sought to vary the terminal hour for the provision of late night refreshment to 02:00 hours on Fridays and Saturdays.
Representations against the application were received from the Licensing Authority and from the Environmental Health Service. The representations referred to the fact that the Premises are located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), which was not referenced in any way in the application, and that the applicant offered no conditions to address the potential impact of the proposed variation on the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.
Applicant
Carlos Tituana, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and Federico Benatti. Mr. Tituana explained that the variation was sought as the Premises currently closed early and they were catering to the local Bolognese community. Conditions had been agreed with the police and he apologised for not having offered any conditions in the application. He explained that the Premises could hold only a small number of people and there was no proposal to vary the hours for the sale of alcohol or music. They also indicated that they would have a dispersal policy in place.
Mr. Benatti explained that they operated premises in other similar locations and that staff were trained to handle complaints and dispersal.
During questions from Members, Mr. Tituana confirmed that they were not aware of the CIZ at the time of making the application and that they only became aware of it afterward. He also informed the Sub-Committee that he had not checked this beforehand. He said that he was not aware that he needed to suggest conditions himself but that he had since agreed conditions with the Police. He suggested that they would be willing to arrange for a manager to be SIA-trained and if there were to be queues outside, they would consider the use of security.
Mr. Tituana confirmed that he had taken over the Premises in August 2023 and that they had been operating since October 2023. There were two staff on duty at all times. .Mr. Tituana, in response to a question from the Legal Adviser to the Sub- Committee, agreed that if the variation was granted he was content for there to be a condition requiring alcohol consumption to cease at 00:30 hours i.e. thirty minutes “drinking-up time.” Otherwise, patrons could potentially buy large quantities of alcohol just before midnight and continue to consume it.
Environmental Protection
Ms. Cadzow of the Environmental Health Service addressed the Sub-Committee and spoke to her representation. She was concerned about the lack of any conditions proposed to promote the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance, particularly if there was increased footfall. She was also concerned about how alcohol sales after hours would be controlled. She asked the Sub-Committee to refuse the application but, if it was minded to grant, to impose appropriate conditions.
Licensing Authority
Ms. Miller-Johnson addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. She echoed Ms. Cadzow’s concerns about the Premises’ location within the CIZ and the lack of any suggestion in the application as to how the variation could impact on the CIZ and be mitigated. It was not clear how customers would be stopped from accessing alcohol, for example. She considered that this variation would impact on the CIZ.
Both officers confirmed, when asked, that there were no complaints in relation to the Premises that they were aware of.
The application engaged the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The Premises are located in a CIZ and the applicant therefore has to prove that they will not add further to the impact experienced in an already saturated area. The Policy is intended to be strictly applied (Paragraph 7 of Appendix 3 to the Policy) and the Policy gives non-exhaustive examples of premises that might be considered as exceptions (Paragraph 12). The Premises does not fall within the suggested exceptions.
The Policy states, at Paragraph 11 of Appendix 3, that “…applicants will be expected to comprehensively demonstrate why a new or varied licence will not add to the cumulative impact. They are strongly advised to give consideration to mitigating potential cumulative impact issues when setting out steps they will take to promote the licensing objectives in their operating schedule.” (emphasis added)
The responsible authorities were rightly concerned by the lack of any proposed conditions in the application, particularly as this was a licence that had been “grandfathered” over when the Licensing Act 2003 came into force. The applicant had no knowledge at all that they were operating within a CIZ. Mr. Tituana said he was not aware he needed to suggest conditions. As a DPS, the Sub-Committee was surprised that a DPS would be unaware of the importance of conditions, particularly within a CIZ. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was willing to agree to conditions; however, it suggested a real lack of understanding of the particular area in which the Premises were operating.
The Sub-Committee also took account of the applicant being a relative newcomer. Although the licence had been held in respect of the Premises for some years, the applicant had only been operating the Premises for three months. Whilst the Premises might have a track record, the applicant does not. That too suggested to the Sub-Committee that they did not fully understand the area in which they operated or the issues that would arise in respect of a venue opening late into the night at the weekend.
Decision
The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the variation sought was relatively modest, to open an extra two hours on only two days and that it did not seek to extend the sale of alcohol or the provision of regulated entertainment. Those two days are of course the weekend, when the problems within a CIZ will likely be at their highest and to the later hours when those issues are more likely to occur. For the reasons set out above, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against grant and had demonstrated that they could operate without adding further impact on the CIZ. The Sub-Committee’s decision is to refuse the variation.
Supporting documents: