At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, introduced the report which detailed the application by Environmental Health for a counter-notice against a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) given by Mr. Nathaniel Williams in respect of Colour Factory, Unit 8a Queens Yard, 43 Whitepost Lane, London E1 1BJ.

The TEN provides for the sale by retail of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainmentas follows: -

Friday 28th June 2024 - 09:00 hours– 01:00 hours

Saturday 29th June 2024 - 09:00 hours– 01:00 hours

Sunday 30th June 2024 - 09:00 hours – 22:00 hours

At the request of the Chair, Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer provided reasons to the Sub-Committee as to why the TEN should not be permitted to proceed. The objections focused on the external area. She invited the Sub-Committee to consider adding the following to the TEN, if it was to be accepted: -

(1) reducing the hours for use of external area

(2) limiting the numbers of patrons outside after such time and

(3) not allowing regulated entertainment in the external areas at any time.

Ms Cadzow said that whilst no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance had been established, there had been complaints of noise regarding Colour Factory as recently as 18^th May 2024 and 13^th June 2024. Ms Cadzow expressed concern on behalf of residents at nearby premises including those at Omega Works, 4 Roach Road. Concerns about noise disturbance which included noise from patrons leaving in high spirits.

Mr Williams said that he had operated for four years without complaints from neighbours about noise. He did not anticipate that the TEN, if allowed, would result in a break from that track record. There were other residential premises closer to his premises than Omega Works. The residents at those other premises had not complained to him about noise.

Decision

This application engages the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.

The options are to issue a counter-notice, or to refuse to issue a counter-notice, or refuse to issue a counter-notice and add conditions to the premises licence. The Sub-Committee does not have the power to modify the alter a TEN in any way. 

There was a conflict of evidence between the Environmental Health Officer saying that there had been two recent instances of noise disturbance emanating from the premises; and the applicant saying that he had had no complaints of noise disturbance over the past 4 years.

The onus was on the Environmental Health Officer to satisfy the Sub-Committee, on the balance of probabilities, that the licensing objectives are likely to be undermined if the event proceeds. The Environmental Health Officer presented no evidence to support her assertions of recent noise complaints. No statutory noise nuisance had been witnessed and so no abatement notice had been served or was being considered. There was no evidence to contradict the applicant’s assertion that he had had a four-year period of operating so far without issues. One would expect that if the premises had caused a public nuisance, particularly as recently as alleged, some action would have been taken. That was not the case here.

The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that allowing the event to go ahead would not lead to public nuisance. The Sub-Committee’s decision is therefore to refuse a counter-notice.

This decision was made by a majority vote.