Agenda item
Application for a New Premise Licence for Little LND, Studio 2, Unit3a, 39 Autumn Street, London, E3 2TT
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Litle LND Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Studio 2, Unit 3a, 39 Autumn Street, London, E3 2TT (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for licensable activity as follows:
Sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales only)
Monday to Sunday 09:00 hours to 03:00 hours
Regulated entertainment (films, recorded music, dance (indoors))
Monday to Sunday 06:00 hours to 03:00 hours
Live music (indoors)
Monday to Sunday 12:00 hours to 03:00 hours
The opening hours would be Monday to Sunday 0600 hours to 03:00 hours. Non-standard timings were sought for licensable activity and opening in respect of Christmas, New Year and bank holidays.
The application attracted representations against it from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and from a number of local residents. The police had agreed a number of conditions to be imposed in the event that the licence was granted. The objections were concerned with the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety,
At the start of the meeting, the Sub-Committee was informed that Appendix 18 (Pages 313-400 of the main pack) had been updated and replaced with plans provided in a supplemental agenda.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Robert Sutherland, informed the Sub-Committee at the commencement of his submissions that the times sought for licensable activity were being amended. These were:
Sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales only
Monday to Thursday 09:00 hours to 23:30 hours
Friday and Saturday 09:00 hours to 03:00 hours
Sunday 09:00 hours to 22:30 hours
Regulated entertainment
Friday and Saturday 06:00 hours to 03:00 hours
Live music
Friday and Saturday 12:00 hours to 03:00 hours
The Premises would close to the public thirty minutes after the cessation of licensable activity.
Mr. Sutherland drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the conditions proposed and agreed which appeared in sections 6 and 7 of the report pack. The police were satisfied that these conditions would suffice to promote the licensing objectives. He drew particular attention to conditions 19 and 21 and the effect in particular of condition 19, which would allow the hours to be reduced by the Council and the police in the event of the transport plan not working effectively. The applicant, Mr. Blewitt, would be on-site and would provide his mobile number to local residents so that he could be contacted in the event of problems.
Kathy Driver explained that the Licensing Authority welcomed the reduction in hours. However, her main concern related to the potential for public nuisance. The LLDC, which is the local planning authority, had imposed a planning condition that restricted use of the premises to the hours of 09:00 to 23:30 and that this had been imposed in order to avoid the risk of public nuisance. The area had been changing and continues to do so and is becoming increasingly residential. The Premises had previously operated as a nightclub and that had generated a lot of complaints.
Ms. Driver noted the transport and egress plan. People would exit and leave on foot, by taxi and night bus. Problems had been experienced in the past when people walked and got taxis close to residential properties. There had similarly been issues with public urination. There was no bus service after 01:00 hours. Taxis pulling up near residential properties would inevitably have some noise impact. There was also a nearby petrol station which was used as a taxi pick-up point by patrons and which gave rise to noise complaints and complaints of public urination. Ultimately, the club operation, which is where the money is, was not suitable for this location. Ms. Driver also considered that these plans would be hard to manage in practise.
Ms. Cadzow addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Environmental Health Service. The capacity of the venue was around 300 people. The last bus in the area was at 01:00 hours, which meant a considerable number of Ubers and taxis to collect patrons. Autumn Street was a very small road and potentially 75 to 100 vehicles on that road collecting patrons would lead to noise issues. She too referred to the nearby petrol station and the noise complaints that arose as a result of patrons going there. She drew attention to the proximity of nearby residential properties, with the nearest ones being on the corner of Autumn Street and Wick Lane.
Mr. Dover spoke to his representation. He stated that noise was a guaranteed outcome. He was very concerned about the prospect of road closures by the applicant. He noted that this venue was very different to others that had been managed by the applicant; running a festival in a field was a different proposition to running a nightclub in an urban area. He also drew attention to the fact that planning permission had not been obtained.
He referred to the photographs provided, which showed some of the issues experienced over the years. He noted that the traffic management plan proposed to suspend twelve parking bays in an area with already limited parking. The applicant relied upon the Council granting those suspensions in order for the premises to be able to operate.
Ms. Clark also addressed the Sub-Committee. She was the freeholder of two warehouses in Autumn Yard. Her tenants needed access to the yard at all times and some engaged in noise-sensitive work. She also referred to other issues such as drug use, littering and security. The courtyard was owned by the owner of Unit 3 and there were issues with the surface of the yard, which needed potholes filled in and which presently posed a trip hazard.
She also referred to the changing nature of the area and the problems experienced over the years when the Premises had operated under a premises licence. She considered it likely that these issues would arise again if the licence was granted.
In response to questions from Members, the following was noted;
Mr. Sutherland confirmed that there was no intention of closing the road and that this was a misreading of the plans. Parking in the nearby bays at night was minimal and so there would be no impact if the bays were to be suspended. There would be one community safety-accredited person present as they would have power to impose some traffic controls and could report offenders to the authorities. With respect to taxi pick-up points, the Sub-Committee was told that apps were now more sophisticated and drivers could be directed to specific pick-up points. It was anticipated that around 80% of patrons would leave by a vehicle. The only barriers to be placed in the road were barriers parallel to the carriageway to assist in maintaining public safety.
Mr. Dover disputed the assertion about the parking bays and that they were in regular use at all times. He also stated that he had been threatened on three occasions for asking people to keep noise down. Since the last club had been closed down, there had been no problems. Ms. Driver suggested that the potential for road closures gave rise to a risk of people hanging around and not dispersing.
Mr. Sutherland noted that planning was a separate regime and that a planning application was to be made. There would be no issue with people needing access to the yard getting in. In his view, the application could be granted given the main use of the Premises during the week, the traffic management plan would address many of the issues, capacity was only 300 hundred people and the applicant had the experience to run this venue.
Decision
This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of crim and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. The Sub-Committee had regard to the oral and written submissions of all the parties, including those who had not attended. The Sub-Committee welcomed the reduction in hours offered by the applicant. However, it must be borne in mind that if the application was granted, the applicant would benefit from the deregulation provisions applicable to live and recorded music and that no licence would be needed for regulated entertainment between 08:00 hours and 23:00 hours. Thus, whilst it certainly addresses the concern of a nightclub operating until 03:00 hours seven days per week, it did not entirely mitigate all the issues raised.
The Sub-Committee accepted, and it did not seem to be disputed, that when a nightclub had operated in the Premises between 2013 and 2019, problems had arisen on a regular basis. This was despite there being a good management company in place (Page 223). It is also of note that several of the representations were very clear about the lack of problems being experienced since the Premises ceased to operate.
The Sub-Committee noted an email from Lottie Metrebian at Page 307 to (presumably) those making representations to explain what they intended to do within the Premises, such as providing a work space and a social space. A similar document was contained in the Supplemental Agenda at pages 75 to 85, indicating a variety of uses. Many of those uses, however, did not require a premises licence. Whilst the Sub-Committee accepted that these might well be the likely daytime uses and unlikely to give rise to problems, the Premises’ operation in the evening until closing was more likely than not going to be closer in style to a bar or a club than to a creative community space. The application itself described the Premises as intended to be used predominantly for music events (Page 188). Notwithstanding the reduction in hours, that intention did not appear to have changed.
The Sub-Committee also had regard to the proximity of the Premises to residential properties as well as the changing nature of the location, with more residential development being constructed. This was recognised in the applicant’s own documentation, at Page 230, which also refers to three stations around 0.8 miles away and bus stops at the junction of Autumn Street and Wick Lane. These also support the points made by the representations about the lack of public transport in the area after about 23:00 hours. That therefore limits the dispersal options and raises the likelihood of noise from and associated with Ubers and taxis, especially on a Friday and Saturday. Members also had regard to what Ms. Clark said about the yard itself being very small and not suitable for vehicles turning around in it. Given that Autumn Street is a dead-end, that would mean vehicles having to turn around in the road, which again can give rise to noise issues, whether from engines, sounding of horns, and similar.
The Sub-Committee noted, but was not particularly assisted by, the report of Adrian Studd. He refers to having seen the traffic management plan dated 29th January 2024 but the plan was updated in March 2024. The Sub-Committee found it odd that he referred, at paragraph 23, to it being “beneficial to identify who will perform the role of Designated Premises Supervisor”, given that the DPS must be and is specified in the application. He appeared to only address the police proposed conditions and the Licensing Authority representation but makes no mention of any other representation or the issues raised by those other representations. It is also not clear whether or not he has visited the area. He did not consider that the previous history meant that similar problems were likely to occur with this operator.
The options open to the Sub-Committee are to grant with appropriate conditions and modifications, to exclude any of the licensable activities from the scope of the licence, or to refuse the application (the option to refuse to specify the proposed DPS not being an option in this instance). Given the modification proposed by the applicant in respect of regulated entertainment from Sunday to Thursday, the only licensable activity that could now be removed from the scope of the licence on those days is the sale of alcohol. That would be the equivalent of a refusal. It was also not a viable option, given the nature of the application, to remove any of the licensable activities on a Friday or a Saturday. If alcohol were removed, it would be open to patrons to bring their own; if regulated entertainment were removed, it would fundamentally change the nature of the intended operation and likely be unworkable.
The Sub-Committee noted the planning permission, which was addressed by the LLDC in their representation, and which made clear that the permitted hours were imposed in order to avoid public nuisance. Whilst the licence, if granted, would not alter the hours as far as planning law is concerned, the two regimes are separate. Moreover, non-compliance with a planning condition is not an offence. However, given that the planning authority had imposed a condition intended to prevent public nuisance, the Sub-Committee considered that this was a relevant consideration to take into account.
The Sub-Committee accepted the representations made by the responsible authorities and the residents. Notwithstanding Mr. Studd’s belief that the conditions and plans would mitigate any impact on the licensing objectives, the Sub-Committee found the representations of those who live and work in the area to be more compelling given their local knowledge and their ability to talk to their experience on a day-to-day basis. The Sub-Committee accepted their evidence as to the issues that had arisen during the previous operation of the Premises and accepted that granting this licence, even with the conditions proposed, would lead to a significant impact on the licensing objectives and which could not be mitigated by the proposed conditions. The Sub-Committee had regard to the fact that there is only one route out of Autumn Street, given that it is a dead end, and that patrons would leave via Wick Lane, where the closest residential properties were located.
The Statutory Guidance at paragraph 2.25 provides that:
“Where applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate conditions should normally focus on the most sensitive periods. For example, the most sensitive period for people being disturbed by unreasonably loud music is at night and into the early morning when residents in adjacent properties may be attempting to go to sleep or are sleeping.”
Similarly, paragraphs 16.6 to 16.8 and 16.10 address the issue of hours. These provide that:
“16.6 The Licensing Authority considers that the possibility of disturbance to residents late at night and in the early hours of the morning, and the effect that any such disturbance may have, is a proper matter for it to consider when addressing the hours during which licensable activities may be undertaken.
16.7 The Licensing Authority is concerned to ensure that extended licensing hours do not result in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour persisting into the night and early hours of the morning. For these reasons, applications to carry on licensable activities at any time outside the framework hours will be considered on their own merits with particular regard to the matters set out in the Policy section below…
Applications in respect of premises licences and club premises certificates to authorise licensable activities outside the framework hours, and in respect of which relevant representations are made, will be decided on their own merits and with particular regard to the following.
Thelocation ofthe premises andthegeneralcharacter ofthe areainwhichthe premises are situated.(i.e.,doesthe area includeresidentialor business premiseslikelyto be adverselyaffected).
The proposed hoursduring which licensable activitieswillbe take place andthe proposed hoursduring whichcustomers will be permittedtoremain onthe premises.
The adequacyof the applicant’s proposals to addresstheissues ofthepreventionof crime and disorder andtheprevention of publicnuisance.
Where the premises have been previously licensed, the past operation ofthe premises.
Whether customers have accessto public transportwhen arrivingat orleavingthe premises at nighttime andin the earlyhoursof the morning.
The proximityof the premises to other licensedpremises in thevicinityandthe hoursof those other premises.”
“In addition, and in relation to all applications, whatever the hours applied for where its discretion is engaged, the Licensing Authority will generally deal with the issue of licensing hours having due regard to the individual merits of each application. However, consideration will be given to imposing stricter conditions in respect of noise control where premises are situated close to local residents.”
Patrons would not necessarily be leaving the Premises until thirty minutes after licensable activity ceases. It would take some time to disperse everyone from the area and the Sub-Committee considered that the representations evidenced the likely impact. The Sub-Committee considered impact to be inevitable on a Friday and Saturday. Consideration was given to reducing the hours on those days. However, the intended operation of the Premises combined with the lack of public transport in the area from around the cessation of licensable activity led the Sub-Committee to conclude that there was still likely to be a degree of noise nuisance to the neighbours, even at framework hours, and which would not be mitigated by the conditions. For that reason, although welcomed, the Sub-Committee did not consider that a reduction to framework hours seven days per week combined with the various conditions would suffice to address the concerns raised by the representations. Condition 19, whilst welcomed as being a genuine attempt to provide a degree of comfort during late hours, would be rendered redundant by a reduction in hours seven days per week. Ultimately, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that there were no measures that could be taken in relation to this application to mitigate the impact upon the licensing objectives and which would allow the licence to be granted.
The Sub-Committee is therefore satisfied that the only decision open to it is to refuse the application.
Supporting documents:
-
Little LDN cover report - 23 April 24, item 3.2
PDF 291 KB
-
Little LDN Appendices Only - 23 April 24, item 3.2
PDF 72 MB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 1, item 3.2
PDF 6 MB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 2, item 3.2
PDF 15 MB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 3, item 3.2
PDF 118 KB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 4, item 3.2
PDF 20 MB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 5, item 3.2
PDF 922 KB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 6, item 3.2
PDF 5 MB
-
Autumn St Supporting doc 7, item 3.2
PDF 437 KB