At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Hatton Garden Properties Ltd. for a new premises licence for The Yard Theatre, Unit 2a Queens Yard, 43 White Post Lane, London, E9 5EN (“the Premises”).

The Premises are already licensed and the application was made by the landlord of the Premises for a “shadow licence” which was identical in all respects to the existing licence.

The application attracted representations from three residents, all of which were based on the prevention of public nuisance.

At the request of the Chair, the Sub-Committee heard from Holly McColgan, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant as to the rationale for the application, which was simply in order to protect their interests as the landlord. It was uncommon for such an application to come before a Sub-Committee and it was entirely normal for landlords to seek to protect their interests given the ways in which premises licences can end.

The Sub-Committee was told that the representations misunderstood the nature of the application. Nothing would change to the current operation, there were no responsible authority representations, and nothing in the representations made actually referred to issues caused by the operation of the Premises.

The Council’s licensing policy did not address shadow licences. However, the venue is a theatre and although the hours sought were outside of framework hours, the policy recognised that venues such as theatres tended not to give rise to problems and therefore took a more “low-key” approach.   

During questions from members, it was accepted that more could have been done to engage with residents and explain the rationale behind the application. This was the first such application by the applicant and they intended to do this across their whole estate, and so they would learn from this experience for future applications. The Sub-Committee was also told that the tenant was an exemplary tenant and had just been granted a new thirty-year lease of the Premises, which indicated that the Premises would continue to operate without a problem.

The residents who had made representations had not attended. One person had nominated another person to speak for them. However, that nominee had failed to attend and purported to nominate a third party. The Sub-Committee was given legal advice that it was not possible for a nominee to nominate somebody else to speak; any nomination had to have been made by the person making the representation. The Sub-Committee had read and noted the representations.

Decision

The Sub-Committee accepted that the representations were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what was being south. All three representations were identical, save for the third one which included an additional paragraph about noise nuisance from nearby building work at a different premises, which was not a relevant consideration for the Sub-Committee. It dd aster that noise could be heard from the venue although no more detail was given. All the representations seemed to think this would be a new venue operating in the area.

The Sub-Committee took account of the fact that only one licence would be in operation at any one time and that this was a shadow licence and not a new or different licence. The venue operated without causing any problems and, indeed, the Sub Committee was informed that the Premises did not currently operate to its permitted terminal hours. There was nothing to suggest to the Sub-Committee that granting the application would adversely impact upon the licensing objectives.

The application is therefore granted as sought

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence for Unit 2a, Queens Yard, 43 White Post Lane,  London, E9 5EN be GRANTED.