At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer introduced the report for a new premises licence to be held in respect of House of Music & Entertainment, 20 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LP (“the Premises”). The application sought the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the Premises from 10:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and from 10:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Sundays. The opening times were proposed to be 07:00 to 23:30 Monday to Saturday and 07:00 hours to 22:30 hours on Sundays.

The application attracted representations against it from the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Health Service. These representations were based on the fact that the Premises were located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and the risk of the Premises adding to the problems in the CIZ. The representations suggested that the applicant had failed to provide evidence that rebutted the presumption of refusal.

At the request of the Chair, The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Stewart Gibson on behalf of the applicant. He said the application could be treated as an exception to the CIZ. There would be no admittance to the general public. It would be for members only or, if hired out, for pre-booked event guests only.

He stated that the licence would be active only when events took place. There was a double entry door and people needed a key fob for entry. Alcohol would be ancillary to an event and regulated entertainment had not been applied for. Only acoustic music would be played and he therefore submitted that these sufficed to rebut the presumption against refusal.

With respect to the objection from the Environmental Health Service, Mr. Gibson stated that there would be no amplified music and acoustic music would only be performed if part of an event. Only five persons would be permitted to leave to smoke at any one time. The type of events proposed were creative, industry-focused networking events. The maximum capacity would be 100 persons.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Ibrahim Hussain addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. They objected on the basis that the applicant had not rebutted the presumption against grant and they had concerns over the capacity. Conditions had been proposed, in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant, some of which had been agreed by the applicant.

Mr. Onuha Olere addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Environmental Health Service. Their representation too was concerned with the policy and the potential impact of another licensed premises on the area, including footfall as people leave.

In response to questions the following was noted;

• The applicant confirmed that the retail spaces were not included within the area in which licensable activity could take place.
• The applicant explained that their members were people who contracted to use the Premises as a pop-up office space and could hire it as part of their membership.
• The events would be run by the Premises and staffed by them.
• It was clarified that the business was mainly office use by day and examples of the types of events proposed were included in the supplemental reports pack and would include training or networking events.
• Mr. Gibson and his client, Mr. Allen, clarified the name of the Premises and that their client base was people working in the independent music industry. Further, the name of the Premises could be abbreviated to HOME, which explained the ethos behind the business.
• Mr. Olere confirmed to members that the conditions proposed did not indicate that thought had been given to the CIZ. For example, the conditions referring to public nuisance seemed to be concerned with smoking.

The Legal Adviser asked further questions for clarification, namely with respect to the number of events they anticipate to hold each week and the proposed hours, given that the application, if granted, would allow the sale of alcohol every day. Ms. Freeman suggested that they expected one or two events and suggested that the Sub-Committee could limit this to four per week. Similarly, it was unclear why the sale of alcohol had bee proposed from 10:00 hours if the main use during the day was as office space. Mr. Freeman stated that they did not particularly need the sale of alcohol during the day and that it was mostly from the afternoon onwards that it would be more beneficial.

Concluding remarks were made by both parties.

Decision

This application engages the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. The Premises ‘ location within a CIZ requires the applicant to rebut the presumption against grant (paragraph 7 of the CIZ policy statement). The Policy sets out possible exceptions to the CIZ. These include small premises (less than fifty persons) operating within framework hours, for consumption on the premises only and with arrangements to prevent vertical drinking, or applications for licences that are not alcohol led. The possible exceptions are non-exhaustive and the mere fact that an applicant falls within them does not guarantee that an application will be granted. The fact that premises may be well run, for example, is not a possible exception since this is the standard expected of all licensed premises.

The Premises do not fall into a stated exception, given the capacity of up to 100 persons. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant did not appear to have given any real thought to the CIZ in its operating schedule. The conditions proposed were entirely generic and did not appear to take the CIZ into account in any way. Whilst it was said that the Premises would not be alcohol-led, the Sub-Committee was of the view that it would be; the applicant did not intend to have any licensed events during the day, when the main business operation of use as office space would take place. The intention was to mainly use the licence after working hours, for networking events and similar, where drinking and conversation would be the inevitable focus.

The sale of alcohol and its consumption would not be ancillary to any other activity. Further, the Sub-Committee understood this to mean that vertical drinking was likely, if not inevitable. This was accepted by the applicant’s agent in his response to the responsible authorities at page 19 of the supplemental agenda pack. Adding music to the mix, albeit acoustic (and thus not regulated) was more likely to lead to increased drinking and intoxication. This led to a greater risk of people leaving the venue at the end of an evening, potentially intoxicated, and adding to the impact within the CIZ, whether as a result of causing noise disturbance or anti-social behaviour or remaining within the area.

The Sub-Committee was also not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that they properly understood the CIZ or the challenges of operating within one. That went to the faith that the Sub-Committee could have in the applicant being able to properly promote the licensing objectives within the CIZ.

Mr. Gibson pointed to the lack of representations from residents. That did not add weight to rebutting the presumption; it could be no more than a neutral point.

The Sub-Committee noted the suggestion that the Premises would not operate as a bar and would not utilise the licence on a daily basis. However, this only came about during questions from our legal adviser, which then begged the question of why they had applied for a licence which, if granted, would allow them to operate every day. Further, when asked about this and having said the number of likely events would be one or two per week, the applicant suggested that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant it would be content with four such events per week, which suggested it might wish to run events as frequently as possible.

The Sub-Committee was given information about membership of the Premises. However, this seemed to be relevant more to the office use than to the use for events, which could certainly be hired out to external parties (see page 17 of the supplemental agenda pack). The Sub-Committee accepted that there would be a guest list and that people would be unable to simply walk in and buy alcohol but that was not, in Members’ view, sufficient to rebut the presumption. Further, paragraph 11.4 of the Policy reinforces that a strong view will be taken of applications where the intended use has a higher likelihood of causing public nuisance. This is particularly so where the application is for premises within a CIZ. The Sub-Committee understood there to be residential premises in close proximity to the venue.  

The Sub-Committee noted the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities that had been agreed by the applicant as well as those which had not, including one requiring alcohol to be served with a table meal. It accepted that such a condition would be inappropriate. However, those which had been agreed were not sufficient to justify treating this application as an exception. The fact that some could not be agreed, such as the condition restricting vertical drinking, reinforced to the Sub-Committee that the main focus would be on alcohol consumption. Even if not operating as a bar, which would reduce that potential impact, the fact remained that the application was for a venue that was focused on alcohol and music.

Having had regard to the application and the representations, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against granting this application, for the reasons set out above. The application is therefore refused.

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence for House of Music & Entertainment, 20 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LP be REFUSED.