At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed an application by Solid Floor Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Solid Floor, 7a Ezra Street, London, E2 7RA (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for licensable activities as follows:

Sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales only)

Monday to Thursday                    09:00 hours to 22:30 hours

Friday and Saturday                     09:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Sunday                              09:00 hours to 19:30 hours

Late night refreshment

Friday and Saturday                     23:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Non-standard timings were also sought on days preceding bank holidays, namely a terminal hour of 23:30 hours. The Premises would close to the public thirty minutes after licensable activity ceased, again with non-standard timings sought on the day preceding a bank holiday.

The application attracted a number of representations, which included residents and a business. The representations asserted that all four licensing objectives would be undermined if the application is to be granted. However, there was no consensus between the residents; some were content for the application to be granted subject to additional conditions, whereas others weren’t. 

At the request of the Chair, The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Peter Conisbee on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the concept behind the application was to provide a high-end dining experience. He suggested that the representations were not against the sale of alcohol but against the restaurant. He commented that the Premises are not in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ); nonetheless they had proposed a robust operating schedule as if they were in a CIZ in order to try to mitigate all concerns.

With respect to noise from the Premises, there was no-one realistically affected by that. Noise from patrons dining outside was not realistic, as the nearest residential premises were some 50 metres away. Various conditions had been agreed in response to the representations and the Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to his letter appearing at Pages 7 to 14 of the second supplementary agenda.

He explained that parking would not be an issue. Statistics suggested that some 67% of people going out in London would use public transport, cycle or walk. The external area would be closed by 21:00 hours. With respect to the petition submitted by one of the residents, he said that the nearest was 200 metres away and the furthest was about 8km away.

It was noted that none of the responsible authorities had made a representation in respect of the Premises.

The Sub-Committee then heard from a number of those making representations. Mr Charles Garrad asserted that adding up to 1,000 users a day was “a terrible idea.” He expressed concern that the premises licence could be transferred to another person who could expand the number of covers. The street already experienced a great deal of traffic disruption and deliveries would be made by vans that would inevitably block the highway, a problem already occurring, which would be made far worse.

Mr Adrian Heathfield told the Sub-Committee that Ezra Street was a narrow Victorian street with high walls. This had the effect of amplifying noise from traffic. He suggested that people assumed the area was not residential because of the existence of the builder’s yard and the school. He referred to there being four licensed premises within 25 yard and that there would be a substantial impact on the street. Noise from waste trucks in the early hours would increase if the Premises operated as a restaurant.

Mr Duncan Campbell spoke to his representation. He also expressed concerns about the narrow width of the street. Another licensed premises would mean more people which in turn would mean more noise when they arrive and when they leave. He suggested that it would attract other people to the area. There was a school nearby and the number of deliveries would quadruple. The venue would be open to the air in part and he asserted that it would give rise to waste from bottles and from fly-tipping.

Mr Christopher Sheppard also referred to the number of licensed premises in the vicinity, with 23 within 300 metres of the school. He asserted that the effect of another licensed premises would be to create a nighttime economy in the area. He asserted that this was happening gradually and that parking in the area was now subject to 24-hour restrictions as a result.

Mr Matt Genasci spoke on behalf of his wife, Deborah Young. He did not oppose the application outright and looked forward to another nice restaurant in the area. His concerns were mostly around vibrations and noise from the Premises as his home adjoined the Premises and he could hear normal everyday noise from the venue. Whilst that was not currently a problem, with up to eighty people in the Premises it would be. Equally, the upper floor overlooked much of their house, reducing their privacy. 

In response to questions the following was noted;

-       That residents/neighbours had not been consulted on the application.

-       That the premises had a capacity of 80 people

-       That the school would not be affected by the opening and closing times of the premises.

Concluding remarks were made by all parties.

Decision

This application predominantly engages the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and, to a lesser degree, the prevention of crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee had read all the material relevant to the application as well as hearing the oral submissions. There was some irrelevant information given to the Sub-Committee and some information that was not raised in the original representations. Where that happened, the Sub-Committee disregarded it.

The Sub-Committee did not consider that the objective of the protection of children from harm was engaged by virtue of additional vehicular traffic that might be generated. That was far too remote from the licensable activity and, to the extent that there might be additional traffic, that was a road safety issue rather than a licensing issue. The objective focuses on exposure to harms within a venue and in the immediate vicinity, rather than away from it.

With respect to the public nuisance licensing objective, the Sub-Committee did not accept that the likely outcome would be to add 1,000 visitors per day. The capacity would be limited to 80 persons at any one time and it was not realistic to suggest that the Premises would be filled to that capacity all day from opening to closing. Equally, lack of parking was not, of itself, relevant; whilst it may be annoying to have difficulty parking outside or close to one’s home, it is not a right and cannot amount in law to a nuisance. The Sub-Committee accepted, however, that additional traffic and parking could give rise to problems that could amount to public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee noted the lack of representations from responsible authorities. This did not mean that the views of those making representations carried any less weight. The Statutory Guidance at paragraph 9.12 indicates that each responsible authority will usually be the licensing authority’s main source of advice within their particular remit; they will not always be so and those living in the area can often provide much more information than a responsible authority because of that.

Several residents referred to a recent review of the CIZs within the area and, in their representation urged the Sub-Committee to impose a CIZ within the area. This is not within the Sub-Committee’s remit and the Sub-Committee cannot consider the fact that there is a CIZ very close by. Whilst the absence of a CIZ does not prevent the Sub-Committee from considering cumulative impact, it is nonetheless a high hurdle to overcome. The Sub-Committee did not consider that it had sufficient evidence of cumulative impact to overcome that hurdle.

The Sub-Committee took account of the operating schedule proposed by the applicant as well as additional conditions offered. Some of these seemed to be in the nature of being a good neighbour; it appeared that only one or two properties were overlooked and this was not likely to amount to a public nuisance. The same applied to the rear wall adjoining Ms. Young’s property.

Equally, some of the suggested concerns were not likely to materialise, such as an increase in pests and fly-tipping.

However, the Sub-Committee did consider that there was a likelihood of additional public nuisance. It was asserted that 67% of people in London used some form of public transport. It did not follow that patrons of the venue would necessarily do so. Some would do so. Some would use private transport or Ubers. As already mentioned, parking is not a relevant consideration but the noise that can arise, throughout the day and especially later at night, from engines starting and revving, car doors slamming, music being played, and horns being sounded are all capable of amounting to a public nuisance. That is not something that can be controlled by the Premises.

Similarly, for those who arrive or leave by Uber or walk, there is a risk of additional noise from raised voices and vehicle engines. The photos provided to the Sub-Committee did show that Ezra Street is only wide enough for two cars and, given that parts of the road are given over to parking, it means potential congestion throughout the day and late at night and which has the potential to give rise to public nuisance. The Sub-Committee accepted the possibility of noise being amplified due to the high walls of many of the surrounding buildings.

Having considered all the information presented to it, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting this application would adversely impact upon the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee has paid particular attention to paragraphs 9.42 to 9.44 of the Statutory Guidance and was satisfied, from what it had heard from the local residents, that the impact upon the public nuisance licensing objective could not be mitigated. The application is therefore refused.

Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;

RESOLVED

That the application for a new premises licence for Solid Floor, 7a Ezra Street, London, E2 7RA be REFUSED.