At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller Johnson, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Mr. Steven Smorthit for a premises licence in respect of the Boro of Bethnal Green Working Men's Club, 42-44 Pollard Row, London E2 6NB.

The application sought: -

Regulated Entertainment (Plays, Films, Live & recorded Music and Performance of dance) (Indoors)

Sunday to Wednesday from 10:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Thursdays from 10:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Friday to Saturday from 10:00 hours to 02:30 hours

Late Night Refreshment (indoors)

Thursdays from 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Friday to Saturday from 23:00 hours to 02:30 hours

Sales of Alcohol (on sales only)

Sunday to Wednesday from 10:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Thursdays from 10:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Friday to Saturday from 10:00 hours to 02:30 hours

At the request of the Chair Ms Kerry Smorthit, Mr. Alan Milner, and Mr. Rory O’Donoghue presented the application on the basis that Mr. Dent, the holder of the existing premises licences relating to the same premises, had been served with a notice to stop trading at the premises and was due to vacate by 29^th July 2024.

Ms Smorthit explained that the application was to enable the applicant to continue community events with licensable activities to fund maintenance of the building. The Sub-Committee heard that staff had years of experience in running events and would therefore not cause any disturbance to surrounding neighbours.

The Sub-Committee noted that the application had incorrectly stated the starting time for late night refreshment which cannot, as a matter of law, take place before 23:00 hours, and therefore, the applicant agreed to amend the application in that regard.

Members heard from Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Service, who explained that the application did not address the addition to cumulative impact of public nuisance, and crime and disorder in a cumulative impact area (CIA). Ms. Holland reminded the Sub-Committee of the rebuttable presumption that where premises are in a CIA, an application will be refused, and pointed out that the application did not mention the CIA. Ms. Holland reminded the Sub-Committee that the onus was on the applicant to show exceptional reason why granting the application would not undermine the licensing objectives by adding to the cumulative impact in the area.

Objections were received against the application from other local residents and other interested parties, including the current licence holder, Mr. Dent, on the basis of public nuisance, and to a lesser extent, crime and disorder in relation to antisocial behaviour.

Members then heard from Mr. Dent, who referred to conflict between the terms of the application and the terms of the existing premises licence held by him. Mr. Dent also made representation about being unfairly evicted.

Objectors other than Mr. Dent and the Licensing Authority did not attend the Sub-Committee meeting. Their written objections in the agenda pack were considered. Broadly, these expressed concerns over whether the applicant could maintain the same standards, particularly in terms of preventing noise disturbance, preventing crime and disorder, and drawing in the same diverse and inclusive patronage as Mr. Dent had achieved.     

In response to questions the following was noted;

• That the applicant did not understand the challenges of operating within a CIZ. When asked what they understood about it, the response was that they were not aware of the CIZ, but would look into it subsequently.
• Concerns were raised by both parties regarding the existing premises licences.

Concluding remarks were made by both parties.

Decision

The Sub-Committee reflected that the licence sought would not be a shadow licence, and applicant is unconnected to Mr. Dent. This application would be considered on its own merits. The terms of an existing premises licence are irrelevant. Any disputed eviction is also irrelevant.

The relevant criteria are the licensing objectives and the Council’s cumulative impact policy. This application engages the licensing objectives of public nuisance, and to a lesser extent, crime and disorder in relation to antisocial behaviour.

The Sub-Committee appreciated the legitimate concerns of the Licensing Authority   over the impact of licensed premises in a CIA.

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone, and so, the effect of premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIA is that there is a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons objecting to the application, the application will be refused.

The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIA.

Paragraph 7 of appendix 5 to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy says that the Council’s cumulative impact policy “will be strictly applied and where relevant representations are received and it is the view of the Council that the application will be refused. Applicants will need to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances and that granting their application will not negatively add to the cumulative effect on the Licensing Objectives within the Brick Lane and Bethnal Green CIAs if they wish to rebut this presumption.”

Paragraph 8 of the same says,” The Special Cumulative Impact policy creates a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons against applications (Councillors, Members of the Public) within the CIA zones the application will be refused.”

Paragraph 9 of the same says, ”Where representations have been received in respect to applications within the CIA zones the onus is on the applicant to adequately rebut the presumption.”

Paragraph 11 of the same says, that the Council’s cumulative impact policy “is not absolute and the Licensing Authority recognises that it has to balance the needs of businesses with local residents. The circumstances of each application will be considered on its merits and the Licensing Authority shall grant applications, when representations are not received. The applicant should demonstrated that the operation of the premises will not add to the cumulative impact on one or more of the following licensing objectives:

• Prevention of Crime and Disorder;

• Prevention of Public Nuisance.

Therefore, 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.”

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant sought to address this by reference to the provision of community events on a not-for-profit basis. This is insufficient to rebut the presumption against granting the application, because operating on a not-for-profit basis does not in itself prevent addition to cumulative impact in the area in terms of public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against refusal of the application. The fact that the applicant had not considered the CIA and, when asked, clearly had no knowledge of what it meant or what challenges were likely to arise as a result, gave the Sub-Committee no confidence that there would be no impact. That lack of knowledge and understanding meant that the application, if granted, was more likely than not to adversely impact the CIA by adding to existing public nuisance, and crime and disorder in the area. 

The representations of residents and other interested parties, whilst considered, were not based on evidence as to the applicant’s ability to uphold the licensing objectives, nor was there evidence of the applicant not encouraging a diverse and inclusive crowd. The applicant’s failure to rebut the presumption created by the CIA is reason not to grant the application.

Therefore, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application.

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence for Boro of Bethnal Green Working Men’s Club, 42-44 Pollard Row, London E2 6NB be REFUSED.