At the request of the Chair, Mr Ibrahim Hussain, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the 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 and off the Premises. The hours sought were 11:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and from 11:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Sunday, with drinking-up time of thirty minutes each day.

 

The application had received representations in objection. These were from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, SPIRE, and two local residents, one of whom had submitted a petition with their representation. The representations 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 (CIZ).

 

At the request of the Chair, The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Christoper Rees-Gay, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant, who reminded the Sub-Committee that a similar application had been made in November 2023 and refused by the Sub-Committee in January 2024. This application had therefore been made in order to address the specific concerns noted by the Sub-Committee on the previous application and with a view to ensuring that the Premises would not add to the problems already experienced within the Brick Lane CIZ.

 

Mr. Rees-Gay explained that the Premises were not intended to operate as a bar or a club. The Premises would be used as an event hire space for a variety of events. It was noted that several events had already taken place under Temporary Event Notices and there had been no complaints arising from the events held so far. He also explained that not all events would have music or alcohol nor would they all be for the maximum capacity. A noise report had been commissioned at a recent “Pirate radio showcase” which had been used as a worst case scenario.

 

It was noted that the applicant had sought to engage with the responsible authorities. The police had no concerns over crime and disorder. In addition, they had engaged with those local residents who had raised concerns with respect to the previous application. With the exception of SPIRE, none of those residents was now objecting to this application.

 

Mr. Rees-Gay addressed the conditions which he said would address the concerns of the CIZ, among them were many that had been agreed with the police. Some had been agreed with SPIRE and the Environmental Health Service, albeit that their objections remained. The key conditions meant that the Premises could only operate on six occasions each month and only three could take place on Fridays and Saturdays. Alcohol could only be sold at an event and be ancillary to it and all events would be pre-booked.

 

Mr. Rees-Gay briefly commented on the representations, which comments were in line with his speaking note.

 

At the request of the Chair, Mr Christopher Lloyd addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of SPIRE. He referred to Hackney Council having granted a licence recently to a premises known as Sandbox, which the applicant also operated, and was concerned about how the two venues would be controlled. He suggested that the applicant should have waited to see how things worked out at Sandbox before applying and, and had they done so, SPIRE’s position might have been different. He suggested that the applicant’s noise report was not sufficient and that it ignored the presence of residential premises to the west and south-west of the venue. He told the Sub-Committee that the residents of Hollywood Lofts had a different demographic to other blocks and that the three nearest noise sensitive premises were double-glazed; others in the vicinity, however, were not. The Premises also did not have a roof.

 

He questioned the toilet provision and the problems with public urination and that the measures proposed (one toilet and one urinal) would not be sufficient for the capacity of the premises.

 

Mr. Onhura Olere, spoke to the representations made by Environmental Health Service, which was concerned with the prevention of public nuisance. This representation 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. It referred to nearby residential premises and the lack of suitability of the venue for noisy events.

 

Ms. Lavine Miller-Johnson referred to her representation, which was largely based on the CIZ. She referred to a lack of clarity over the percentage of events which would be arts-based or commercial. The conditions offered were noted, but she suggested there was nothing to prevent the Premises from operating as a pop-up bar. She also referred to the deregulation of regulated entertainment and noted that the Premises was not within a policy exception. 

 

Ms. Sajna Miah then addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Halima Begum and residents who had signed a petition. She referred to existing problems within the area, such as drug-dealing, parking problems, noise nuisance from patrons and the venue, as well as nuisance from light emitted from the venue. She referred to problems of public urination and stated that the area was highly residential. She did not consider the venue to be appropriate for this area. She told the Sub-Committee that when the premises had been and operated as a carwash, they experienced nuisance from traffic, including noise, as well as noise from the operation of the carwash itself. When the car wash had been operating, there had been noise disturbance 24 hours per day, which had eased off during Covid but increased again subsequently.

 

In response to questions the following was noted;

 

• That the capacity was limited to 100 persons, including staff.
• A noise limiter would be fitted and set to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health service. The applicant agreed to submit a quarterly events diary to SPIRE and the Shoreditch Community Association and would hold at least two liaison meetings each year.
• The applicant also limited the number of live bands performing to one per month.
• The Premises would be trading only when an event was organised and it was not intended to be used as a bar or club; when not open for an event, it was used for storage.
• The conditions limiting the frequency of events meant it could not be used more frequently. It would not be possible, therefore, for people to enter in order to buy alcohol.
• That community events amounted to about 80% of the events held. Examples of commercial events included fashion shows and book signings.
• That the applicant was also willing to agree to a condition prohibiting the Premises from operating as a “pop-up bar.” In addition, they were also willing to ensure that events including TENs were notified to responsible authorities in advance.

 

Concluding remarks were made by all parties.

 

 

Decision

 

This application engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and, to a lesser extent, 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 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, since that is the standard expected of all licence holders.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the various conditions offered by the applicant, some of which had been agreed with the responsible authorities and those making representations, which were intended to rebut the presumption against grant. A number of those specifically addressed concerns raised by the Sub-Committee in respect of the previous decision, such as a limit on the number of events and a reduction in maximum capacity.

 

The restrictions on the number of events and the agreement to a condition making clear that the Premises could not operate as a pop-up bar meant that the impact of the venue would be considerably limited; the venue could not operate every day unless those conditions were varied or removed.

 

The Sub-Committee also had regard to the supporting information provided by the applicant. This included details of five Temporary Event Notices (TENs) already given. It had been confirmed that no problems arose as a result of these events. In addition, the Sub-Committee had before it information as to the types of events and the capacities reached, which showed that not every event even attracted the maximum number of patrons. Moreover, supporting information provided showed that other residents of the nearby residential premises had not experienced any problems. Whilst the Sub-Committee did not take them into account as relevant representations, they did indicate that the potential impact of the venue on the CIZ was less clear, particularly given the nature of the Premises and the intended style of operation.

 

The Sub-Committee noted SPIRE’s representation. The applicant had included correspondence showing that there had been efforts to engage with the various parties in advance of the hearing. The conditions SPIRE had requested, such as door staff and liaison meetings had been agreed. The grant of a licence to Sandbox, being a different premises in a different authority’s area, was not a factor to take into account in determining this application.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the lack of a police representation, but this was a neutral factor at best. It could not be construed as implied support for the Premises.

 

The Sub-Committee considered Mr. Lloyd’s concerns about the applicant’s noise report. However, it was not correct that it ignored the properties to the west and south-west of the Premises; it was clear that the report was referring to the nearest noise-sensitive premises, which would be the ones most likely to be adversely affected by noise. The applicant was willing to have a sound limiter and specifically included that in its operating schedule. The Sub-Committee noted that this would be suspended due to the deregulation of regulated entertainment. However, if not adhered to the inevitable outcome would be a review at which the Sub-Committee could remove the effect of deregulation, if so minded. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns as to the suitability of the structure. However, additional mitigations had been considered in the noise report and if the structure required that the sound level be set at a very low volume so as to avoid a public nuisance, that would be the appropriate level.

 

Members took account of the fact that the area was heavily residential in nature. Ms. Begum flagged a number of concerns. Some, such as parking, are not of themselves relevant to the licensing objectives. Others were clearly issues of wider concern around the area and which were outside the remit of the Sub-Committee.

 

Issues such as the toilet facilities were noted. The applicant explained that there would be two urinals and a toilet. Moreover, the nature of the Premises and the events, combined with the lack of frequency and the fact that alcohol consumption was to be ancillary to the event gave the Sub-Committee some confidence that this was not likely to be an issue with respect to the patrons of the Premises.

 

Had this application been identical to or much more similar to the previous application the Sub-Committee would have had no hesitation in rejecting it for the same reasons as before. However, it was substantially different and the limitations on the number of events, the capacity, and the inability to operate other than on event days satisfied the Sub-Committee that the conditions would mitigate any impact on the CIZ. Further, the Sub-Committee considered that the lack of problems arising from the TENs was a further indication that the Premises could operate without adding to the problems within the CIZ.

 

In addition, the conditions requiring events to be pre-booked and notified to the responsible authorities and residents in advance meant that it would be easier to identify any problems in the event that they did occur.

 

The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against the grant of the licence and the licence is granted as set out below:

 

Accordingly, the Sub Committee by a majority vote;

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application for a new premises licence for Carwash, 1 Quaker Street, London, E1 6SZ be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

 

Sale by retail of alcohol

Monday to Saturday          11:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Sunday                              11:00 hours to 22:00 hours

 

Opening hours of the premises

Monday to Saturday          11:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Sunday                              11:00 hours to 22:30 hours

 

Conditions

 

1.    ThePremises Licenceshall belimited tosix (6)events inany onecalendar monthwith nocarry over. In addition, there shall beno more than 3 of 6 events that take place on Fridays and Saturdays in each calendar month.

 

2.    All eventsmust be pre-booked 14 days in advance. A record of allguests will beheld for each event, this recordto beretained onthe premisesfor aminimum of6 months.The bookingand guestlist shall be available for inspection at the premises by the police or an authorised officer.

 

3.    Alcoholwill onlybe soldwhen apre-booked eventtakes placeat thepremises. Thesale ofalcohol will be ancillary to the event taking place.

 

4.    The licence holder shall not operate, or allow any other person to operate, a “pop-up bar” at the premises. 

 

5.    The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirementsof theTower HamletsPolice LicensingTeam. All entryand exitpoints willbe covered enablingfrontal identificationof everyperson enteringin anylight condition.The CCTVsystem shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with dateand timestamping. Viewingof recordingsshall bemade availableimmediately uponthe requestof Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

6.    A staffmember from the premiseswho is conversant with theoperation of theCCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff member must be able to provide a Policeor authorisedcouncil officercopies ofrecent CCTVimages ordata withthe absolute minimumof delay when requested.

 

7.    Anincident logshall bekept atthe premises andbe availableon request tothe Policeor anauthorised officer. It must be completed within 24 hours of any incident and will record the following:

a)    allcrimes reportedto thevenue;

b)    allejections of patrons;

c)    anycomplaints receivedconcerning crimeand disorder;

d)    anyincidents ofdisorder;

e)    allseizures ofdrugs oroffensive weapons;

f)      anyfaults inthe CCTVsystem, searchingequipment orscanning equipment;

g)    anyrefusal ofthe saleof alcohol;

h)    anyvisit bya relevantauthority oremergency service.

 

8.    Inthe eventthat aserious assaultis committedon thepremises (orappears to havebeen committed) the management will immediately ensure that:

a)    thepolice (and,where appropriate,the LondonAmbulance Service)are calledwithout delay;

b)    allmeasures thatare reasonablypracticable aretaken toapprehend anysuspects pendingthe arrival of the police;

c)    thecrime sceneis preservedso asto enablea fullforensic investigationto becarried outby thepolice; and

d)    suchother measures aretaken (asappropriate) to fullyprotect thesafety ofall personspresent onthe premises.

 

9.    Arecord shallbe keptdetailing allrefused salesof alcohol.The recordshould includethe date and time of the refused sale and the name of the member of staff who refused the sale. The record must show the outcome of the person who was intoxicated. The record shall be available for inspection at the premises by the police or an authorised officer at all times whilst the premises is open.

10.Awrittendispersalpolicyshallbeinplaceandimplementedatthepremisestomove customers from the premises and the immediate vicinity in such a way as to cause minimum disturbance or nuisance to neighbours.

 

11.Thepremises shallrisk assessall eventstaking placeat thevenue. The assessmentshall look at all potential risks including but not limited to violence, intoxication, underage drinking and drug use. This assessment shall be written down and stored for 1 year and made available to Police upon request.

12.The premises must have a detailed documented security plan, that must include an ejectionspolicy,searchpolicy,anti-theftpolicy,andsianumbers,thesecurityplanwillbe made available to police upon request.

 

13.In relation to off sales of alcohol from the premises, this can only be sold in sealed containers. Patronsare notpermitted toremove openbottles/glasses orother openvessels from thelicensed premises.

14.Thelicence holder shallenter intoan agreementwith ahackney carriageand/or privatecarriage firm to provide transport for customers, with contact numbers made readily available to customers who will be encouraged to use such services.

 

15.Adirect telephonenumber forthe managerat thepremises shallbe publiclyavailable atall timesthe premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

16.Thenumber ofpersons permittedin thepremises atany onetime (includingstaff) shallnot exceed 100 persons.

17.A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system and set at a level determined by and tothe satisfactionof anauthorisedofficer ofthe EnvironmentalHealth Service,so asto ensurethat no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses. The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then besecured by key or password to the satisfaction of officers from the Environmental Health Serviceand accessshall onlybe bypersons authorisedby thePremises Licenceholder. Thelimiter shall not be altered without prior agreement with the Environmental Health Service. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of an authorised Officer of the Environmental Health Service. No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.

18.Noticesshall beprominently displayedat allexits requestingpatrons torespect theneeds oflocal residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

 

19.Noticesshall beprominently displayedat anyarea usedfor smokingrequesting patronsto respectthe needs of local residents and use the area quietly.

 

20.No wasteor recyclablematerials, includingbottles, shallbe moved,removed fromor placedin outside areas between 21:00 hours and 07:00 hours on the following day.

21.No collectionsof wasteor recyclingmaterials (includingbottles) fromthe premisesshall takeplace between 21:00 hours and 07:00 on the following day.

 

22.AChallenge 25proof ofage schemeshall beoperated atthe premiseswhere theonly acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

 

23.Allstaff whoseduties includethe servingof alcoholmust betrained inthe requirementsof this scheme including the importance of recording any refusals.

24.Entryby childrenunder theage of18 isprohibited unlessaccompanied byan adultover theage of 18.

 

25.Super-strengthlagers, beersand/or ciders,i.e. thosewith anABV of6.5% orhigher, shallnot besold at the premises.

 

26.Thereshallbeupto3 sia doorstaffforeacheventandthisshallberiskassessed.A copyoftherisk assessment shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by the police and authorised officers of other responsible authorities on request.

 

27.ThePremises Licenceholder shallsubmit aquarterly (atleast every3 months)Events Diaryto the Residents Associations (Shoreditch Community Association and SPIRE), the Licensing Authority and the Police. This record shall also include temporary event notices.

 

28.TheLicence holder shallhold andpublicise2 liaisonmeetings eachyear (atleast every 6months) with local residents and the Residents Associations (Shoreditch Community Association and SPIRE) to address any concerns or complaints about the premises from local residents to prevent public nuisance.

 

29.Therewillbeamaximumof1 xlivebandeventper month.