Agenda item
Application for a Premises Licence for (Carwash), 1 Quaker Street, London E1 6SZ
Licensing Objectives:
· The prevention of public nuisance
· The prevention of crime and disorder
Representations:
· Environmental Protection
· Licensing Authority
· Metropolitan Police
· Residents
Ward: Weavers
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Damon Borley for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Carwash, 1 Quaker Street, London, E1 6SZ (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the Premises only. The hours sought were 11:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday, with drinking-up time of thirty minutes each day.
The application received representations against it. These were from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, and a number of residents. A representation had also been made by SPIRE, a local residents’ group. These were based predominantly on the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder and because of the Premises’ location within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone.
Applicant
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Borley and his agent, Mr. Denny. The Premises were to be used as an event hire space. It was not intended to be open to the public at all times, were a licence to be granted. They would be trading only when a formal booking had been made and the alcohol offering was intended to be limited. It was not intended to operate as a bar or club.
Mr. Denny stated that a terminal hour of 23:00 hours was not necessary, and that the applicant was amenable to reducing this to 22:30 hours. Most events would finish earlier than this. The concerns of the residents and responsible authorities were understood, but there was no intention for the Premises to be a venue at which large quantities of alcohol would be drunk. Mr. Denny also confirmed that there would be no regulated entertainment as the venue would be closing by 23:00 hours.
Mr. Denny also stated that noise levels could be monitored, risk assessments carried out to determine when SIA-staff would be needed.
Residents Association
Randall Thiel addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of SPIRE and also as spokesperson for the other residents who had made representations. He was concerned that the applicant did not fully appreciate the difficulties of operating within the CIZ. There was no specific reference to the CIZ although a number of conditions had been offered up in the operating schedule. The area was also challenging with respect to crime and disorder. The Premises could operate by way of Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and he queried why the venue would need to have drinking until 23:00 hours.
Environmental Protection
Nicola Cadzow spoke briefly to her objection on behalf of the Environmental Health Service, which was concerned with the prevention of public nuisance. She commented on the fact that music was not regulated at the times that the venue was intended to operate, which meant that no enforceable conditions could be imposed to address such issues. This would allow, for example,, the Premises to make use of DJs.
Licensing Authority
Ms. Driver spoke to her representation on behalf of the Licensing Authority, which was predominantly concerned with the impact on the CIZ. She was particularly concerned with how the applicant could guarantee that there would be no impact on the CIZ.
During questions from Members, Mr Borley explained that that vertical drinking was inappropriate to the Premises’ style of operation; alcohol was ancillary to the event. With respect to toilets, there was a toilet and a urinal on site. Mr. Borley noted and understood the concerns regarding public urination in a nearby tunnel and commented that they experienced similar issues when they were closed. Short of providing toilets for patrons, he could not suggest how that could be stopped. The hours sought were in order to cater for all different types of events.
Members also queried the venue itself and the structure and Mr. Borley explained that the building on site had been modified to accommodate a “stretch-style tent” roof. Members were told that it was likely that there would be only one event per week, which usually tended to last for one to three days. The nature of the events, which required set-up time, meant that it was not feasible to have events on a daily basis.
Members also raised queries about how noise nuisance could be controlled. Mr. Borley did offer suggestions such as the use of decibel meters and setting maximum noise levels.
Decision
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. The location of the Premises within the CIZ mean that the applicant has the burden of proving that they will not add to the problems already existing in the CIZ if the application is granted.
The Council’s Policy sets out non-exhaustive examples of venues which might be considered to be exceptions. These include, for example, premixes with a capacity of fifty persons or fewer, only have alcohol for consumption on the premises, or only provide off sales, and have arrangements to prevent vertical drinking. The Sub-Committee was told that the capacity was around 120 patrons. The Premises do not fall within a stated exception.
It is of note also that the Policy does not consider that the venue will be well-run to be exceptional.
The Sub-Committee noted the suggestion by those making representations that the applicant had made no mention of the CIZ in the application and thus had not considered the CIZ. However, the Sub-Committee considered that the number and extent of the conditions offered up demonstrated that they had taken the CIZ into consideration. Nonetheless, offering up numerous conditions, no matter how robust, will not necessarily suffice to rebut the presumption in favour of refusal.
The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s intentions. However, the difficulty was that the licence, if granted, would allow them to operate every day, whether as a bar or as some other type of venue. Whilst it might have been possible to impose conditions to reflect that, it still placed the Sub-Committee in some difficulty as to what would have been appropriate. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Premises would still be adding to the CIZ when it did operate.
The applicant was willing to carry out sound level monitoring and have a sound limiter. However, such conditions would be unenforceable due to the deregulation of regulated entertainment. The Sub-Committee considered, however, that the greater noise
impact would be noise from the patrons rather than from music. This would likely be exacerbated if music and alcohol were thrown into the mix. That noise would be impossible to control. However, the Premises being effectively open to the air meant that noise nuisance, from various sources, was likely.
Members took account of the fact that the area was heavily residential in nature and that the likelihood of public nuisance was therefore high. The impacts on the CIZ would not be mitigated by conditions. The Sub-Committee also noted the risk of greater numbers of people leaving the Premises and then remaining in the CIZ afterward as a result of the over-saturation of other venues rather than dispersing. There was also a risk of those patrons coming into conflict with others in the area and becoming victims or perpetrators of crime. As many as 120 people in the Premises and leaving the Premises at closing time was, in the view of the Sub-Committee, going to impact adversely on the CIZ. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that the only appropriate and proportionate decision was to refuse the application.
Supporting documents: