Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for (OSM Ltd) Open Market Space, Old Spitalfields Market, London E1 6AA
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, detailing the application for Open Market Space, Old Spitalfields Market, London E1 6AA. It was noted that objections had been received by local residents and resident associations as well as support from two residents.
Ms Driver explained that since the application had been made there had been a number of amendments to application in terms of timings and conditions, it was also explained that there were licences already in place if the application was to be refused. It was noted that a comprehensive set of conditions had been proposed by the applicant which had been circulated to all interested parties.
At the request of the Chair Ms Clare Eames, Legal Representative for the Applicant explained that Members having read the papers, she would only go over the key aspects of the application and address the concerns raised in relation to the cumulative impact zone (CIZ). She said it was very important to her client to have and maintain a good relationship with the local residents. It was noted that the premises had been owned by the Brooks family since 2015 and a brief history of the family was given.
Ms Eames explained that the premises currently had a licence and was in operation. It was noted that the application had been amended and conditions proposed, amendments were in essence through mediation and in consultation with the Responsible Authorities. It was further noted that the market would be opened longer than the hours the licensable activities had been applied for.
Ms Eames explained the importance to demonstrate through the proposed conditions how they would overcome the rebuttable presumption of the CIZ. She said that there had been pre consultation work with residents, an investment of £5million to improve the market area, introduction of a new kitchen area and there had been community engagement led by the Manager of the premises.
It was noted that the premises had a 150 year lease and the Brooks family had sole control of the premises has since 2015, it was believed that with the investments made to the infrastructure it would reduce the reliance on other food outlets, markets and events.
Ms Eames stated that they would surrender a licence for Smiths which was a late night venue and the licence for Square Pie which also had premise licence, therefore reducing the impact on the CIZ which is currently being experienced. It was also noted that they had removed off sales from the application.
Ms Eames highlighted the fact that there would be a reduction in the special events offered and drew Members attention to the display boards which showed the layout of the premises, it was noted that the plans on the new licence if granted would have a smaller area for the consumption of alcohol then the current licence and the dispensing of alcohol would only be 5% of the premises area and this would be marked on the premises layout plans.
Ms Eames concluded that a noise limiter would be set by an independent Environmental Health Officer and that no objections had been received from Responsible Authorities.
Members then heard from local residents, Mr John Stebbins, and Mr Tony De Jasay and from Councillor Gulam Robbani, who all shared similar concerns about the impact this licence would have on local residents if this licence were to be granted. Members noted objectors’ concerns relating to the existing levels of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour; and noted objectors’ concerns about increased noise nuisance, impact upon family environment, lack of adequate toilet facilities at the premises in question for the likely increased numbers of clientele if the application were granted, that the premises would become the destination for patrons on-route to clubs/bars late at night and into the early hours of the morning, and thereby the likely impact on the cumulative impact zone.
Members then heard from Mr Anthony Edwards who represented the Resident Associations which had made objections. He explained that surrendering the current licences would not be a benefit as he explained that noise in closed premises was different from noise in an open space, which is what the application was for. He expressed the enormity of the concerns raised with approximately 100 residents objecting covering all grounds of the licensing objectives. He then described the types of anti-social behaviour that was experienced by residents on a daily basis. Mr Edwards concluded by making the following points;
- That a 2 hour extension in the evenings, would attract crowds that come in for drinks in the evenings who would then continue on into the area to other late night venues and cause public nuisance to what currently exists.
- The introduction of weekends, would be concerns on Saturdays, with the weekend night life in the Shoreditch and Brick Lane, there would be enormous amount of alcohol provision in the area attracting more party goers into the area.
- Special events in the way of Temporary Events Notices (TENs) would also cause problems as experienced during London Cocktail Week.
- That the toilet facilities were not adequate for the capacity of the premises. He also mentioned that a noise limiter would not be able to stop people from speaking loudly.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- That the premises was currently in the CIZ and had a licence and therefore would not be adding to the cumulative impact.
- That the licence area for consumption and dispensing of alcohol would be reduced significantly from what it currently was and therefore only seeking an extension of the hours.
- The dispensing area would be reduced to 5% of the premises area and with clear and robust conditions it would help reverse the burden of the CIZ.
- The concept of this application was for visitors to be able to have a drink with their food in a central point, which in fact would give staff more control over customers entering and leaving the premises.
- That no responsible authorities have objected in terms of the number of toilets and therefore in the applicant’s submission they were adequate.
- That the maximum capacity was for 1200 people however this did not define the numbers for an event etc.
- The consultations process was explained.
- It was confirmed that if a new licence was granted the existing licence(s) would be surrendered.
- That Smiths nightclub and Square Pie which both have premises licence would be closed.
- That there were 36 flats directly facing the premises
- No evidence to suggest that the problems currently experienced by residents were directly linked to the premises.
- That they would be closed and cleared up by 9.30pm and that there was a full dispersal policy in place.
Members adjourned the meeting at 8pm to deliberate and reconvened at 8.25pm.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee has carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation from the applicant and objectors with particular regard to the licensing objections of prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises in question the premises are situated in the cumulative impact zone and a representation is received, the licence will be refused. However the effect of this special cumulative impact policy is to create a rebuttable presumption.
The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant can rebut the presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee considered that the onus lay upon the applicant to show this through the operating schedule, with appropriate supporting evidence that the operation of the premises, if licensed, would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee noted that the cumulative impact of the number, type and the density of licensed premises in the area may lead to serious problems of nuisance and disorder; and that the cumulative impact zone did not act as an absolute prohibition on granting or varying new licences within that zone.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant that if the application were granted, the applicant would surrender the premises licences for three other premises in the area currently held by the applicant, which the applicant presented as thus mitigating the impact on the cumulative impact zone of licensed premises in the Open Market Space, Old Spitalfields Market.
The Sub-Committee noted written representations made by objectors. The Sub Committee also heard oral representations from objectors regarding the impact of the premises on the Cumulative Impact Zone. The Sub-Committee noted objectors’ concerns relating to the existing levels of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour; and noted objectors’ concerns about increased noise nuisance, impact upon family environment, lack of adequate toilet facilities at the premises in question for the likely increased numbers of clientele if the application were granted, that the premises would become the destination for patrons en route to clubs/bars late at night and into the early hours of the morning, and thereby the likely impact on the cumulative impact zone.
Decision
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s representation that the impact of the premises licence if granted, at the premises in question, would be mitigated by the applicant surrendering the premises licences which they already hold in relation to three other premises in the area.
The Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s reference to the absence of objections from any Responsible Authorities, and were surprised at the absence of any representations of any kind from the Responsible Authorities. However, the Sub-Committee considered that the absence of objections from any Responsible Authorities is not conclusive, and the onus remains upon any applicant seeking a premises licence in a cumulative impact zone to demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee considered that offering to surrender three existing premises licences in the area did not obviate the need for the applicant to demonstrate in their operating schedule, sufficient measures of sufficient robustness which would address concerns about the impact of a premises licence for that set of premises in the cumulative impact zone. It is true that the surrender of three premises licences for other premises in the area would remove the footfall generated by those other three premises. However, the potential increased footfall arising from any grant of the application in this instance requires a particularly robust operating schedule, which should demonstrate particular measures at the premises to address the likely increased impact of increased clientele and potential alcohol fuelled disorder arising therefrom.
The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting met that requirement. The Sub-Committee was concerned about the impact of an increase in licensing hours in the evenings and weekend; that the premises would become a destination for patrons en route to clubs/bars late at night and into the early hours of the morning; noise nuisance would increase; there would be an impact on family environment; there were inadequate toilet facilities at the premises for the likely increase in numbers of clientele; and the potential increase in crime and disorder, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
The Sub Committee was therefore not satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption against granting a premises licence for premises situated in a cumulative impact zone, in that it was considered the applicant failed to demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a Premises Licence for Open Market Space, Old Spitalfields Market, London E1 6AA be REFUSED
Supporting documents:
- Old Spitalfields Market cover report, item 3.1 PDF 138 KB
- Old Spitalfields Market Appendices pack 1, item 3.1 PDF 5 MB
- Old Spitalfields Market Appendices pack 2, item 3.1 PDF 5 MB
- Old Spitalfields Market Supporting Documents 1_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 2 MB
- Old Spitalfields Market Supporting Documents 3_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 105 KB
- Old Spitalfields Market Supporting Documents Final Conditions, item 3.1 PDF 276 KB