Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for Electric Shuffle, 3-6 Steward Street & 50 Gun Street, London E1 6FQ
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Electric Shuffle, 3-6 Steward Street & 50 Gun Street, London E1 6FQ. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf Environmental Protection and local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Matthew Phipps, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that it was a straight forward application and each application should be considered on its own merits. He stated that if the application is granted it would not significantly impact the community.
Mr Phipps explained that it was a positive application and would mean a significant investment is made into the premises. He said it was a first of its kind in the borough, an exceptional and unique social playing experience, electric shuffle, a concept of a 15ft table with discs being shuffled to knock out other players discs, the game is for 6-10 players. He said that there would be a huge investment into the IT infrastructure, a playing experience that would be fun and safe.
Mr Phipps acknowledged that the hours applied for were more extensive than the Council’s Framework hours. He stated that they had consulted with resident organisations such as SPIRE and Spitalfields Community Group and as a result they had not objected to the application. He said the premise was previously licensed as Byron Restaurant and was then surrendered, it was noted that the previous licence only had seven conditions which were very liberal and free of control. He referred to the Tower Hamlets Licensing Policy section 14.8 where it states ‘to authorise licensable activities outside of the framework hours, and in respect of which relevant representations are made, will be decided on their own merits and with particular regard to the following; 14.8 d) where the premises have been previously licensed, the past operation of the premises’. And 19.8 where examples of factors the Licensing Authority may consider as exceptional may include – ‘instances where the applicant has recently surrendered a licence for another premises of a similar size and providing similar licensable activities in the same Special Policy Area’. He again highlighted that the previous licence had less conditions and this new application proposes 32 new conditions.
Mr Phipps explained that the doors on Gun Street will be closed with no access or egress and only used as a fire exit and that the entrance and exit would be on Steward Street. He acknowledged that residents lived above the premises, however music would be inaudible as per the acoustic report once the works had been undertaken.
It was noted that further conditions had been offered which were set out in the Supplemental Agenda Pack 2. It was also noted that there would be 70 members of staff, working as part of teams such as the floor team, bar team, table service team, reception and booking team etc. He explained that there would be a booking system in place and they envisage that 85% of the game sessions would be booked in advance and each game would last for approximately 2 ½ hours. He explained that the booking timings would be staggered in order to avoid queuing etc. Mr Phipps explained that customers would be greeted within 7 seconds of arrival by a care operator who would meet the customers at the door.
Mr Phipps concluded that the Licensing Authority had withdrawn their representation following the conditions proposed by the Applicant. It was also noted that the Police had not objected and in terms of noise the premises would be inaudible and therefore there should be no issue with noise emanating from the premise.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Nicola Cadzow referred to her statement and stated that had the hours been within the framework hours then she would have withdrawn her representation. She stated that the hours applied for will affect residents, it was in the Cumulative Impact Zone, and there were a number of licensed premises in close proximity. She explained that there were 40 flats above and adjacent to the premises. She believed that premises would be likely to cause public nuisance and she was not convinced that premise would be inaudible. She therefore asked that Members refuse the application.
Members then heard from Ms Chiara Sotis, local resident who expressed concerns about the safety of residents, noise associated with the number of customers arriving and leaving the premises and general public nuisance that may arise as a result of a licence being granted.
Members lastly heard from Mr Robin Moore, local residents and landlord for properties on Gun Street, he read through a statement and highlighted that he shared a party wall with no. 50 Gun Street, he believed that they had not considered sufficient measures they will need to put into place to prevent noise breakout from their premises at no. 50 Gun Street. He referred to the Acoustic report and highlighted the potential noise nuisance that would be caused.
He stated that the premises would have a night club type of environment in terms of noise and this was right next door to his property and taking place below 40 residential flats. He queried whether the glass currently installed in the former gym which had previously operated from the same premises as the Applicant’s at Gun Street would be sufficient to limit noise breakout, and that the doors would need to be refitted as currently there were several gaps. He stated that no mention was made of how the noise breakout will be prevented from travelling through the party wall to number 51/52 and 53 Gun Street.
Mr Moore stated that he had visited the branch in Shoreditch, where he was greeted by a member of staff, who then promoted the sale of alcohol by informing him that it cost only £4.60 for a pint. He concluded that the licence for Byron restaurant was not a suitable comparison to this application as it was serving wine at the table compared to this premises where alcohol would be readily available.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- The other branches of Electric Shuffle varied between 1am and 2am closing times.
- It was noted that the other premises operated by Electric Shuffle were in relatively more commercial areas and did not have residents living directly above or next to the premises.
- That 85% of customers would be booking games in advance.
- That booking times would be staggered in order to prevent large groups of customers arriving or leaving at the same time.
- The capacity of the premises was for 300 plus.
- That there was one entrance which would be used for access and egress.
- That the landlord was the same for the premises and for the residents living above the premises.
- There were concerns that Police had not objected to the application.
- That SPIRE and the Spitalfields Community Group had been consulted.
- That alcohol was a fundamental part of the service.
- Concerns were raised about the Applicant’s interpretation of the Cumulative Impact Zone policy of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, given that the premises relating to the application lay within such zone.
- Noted that according to the Cumulative Impact Zone policy of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, anything that adds to the burden to/cumulative impact upon residents with regard to any of the licensing objectives, in particular in this case, public nuisance through noise disturbance including noise from customers arriving and leaving premises situated below and adjacent to residential accommodation is reason to refuse the application, and it was for the Applicant to demonstrate how they would rebut this presumption against granting a premises licence application for premises in a Cumulative Impact Zone .
- That the branches in Bloomsbury and Shoreditch were also in Cumulative Impact Zones.
At that point the Legal Officer in accordance with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Constitution extended the meeting by one hour as the Applicant’s presentation and objectors’ representations needed more time.
In summation, the objectors stated that the premises was within the Cumulative Impact Zone, the hours applied for were outside the Council’s Framework Hours, the premises would be attracting more people into area and have customers spilling into residential streets potentially causing public nuisance.
Mr Phipps referred to the Councils Licensing Policy sections 14.7 and 14.8 and suggested that these should be considered. He stated that they were applying for 6 hours less each day by choosing to open at 12:00 hours (midday) then 06:00 hours, as per the Councils Framework Hours. He also offered that the hours for late night refreshments and regulated entertainment to be reduced in line with the same hours for sale of alcohol and also offered 32 conditions.
Members adjourned the meeting at 9.45pm to deliberate and reconvened at 9.55pm.
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 licensing 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 both the Applicant’s Legal Representative and the Objectors with particular regard to the licensing objectives of the 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 are situated in the cumulative impact zone (CIZ). With reference to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the effect of premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIZ 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 add to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ.
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 in the CIZ in terms of eg. public nuisance in terms of noise disturbance including increased footfall in the CIZ arising from having an additional licensed premises in the CIZ .
The Sub-Committee noted that the cumulative impact of the number, type and the density of licensed premises in the area may lead to problems of public nuisance and crime and disorder; and that the premises being in the CIZ did not act as an absolute prohibition on granting or varying new licences within that zone.
That said, the Sub-Committee also took into account the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy saying that the policy regarding applications for premises within a CIZ will be strictly applied, and where relevant representations are received, it is the view of the Council that the application will be refused, and applicants will need to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances, such that granting the application would not add to the cumulative effect of having more licensed premises in the CIZ, with regard to the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee noted the written representations made by Objectors and also heard oral representations from Objectors regarding the impact of the premises on the CIZ. The Sub-Committee noted Objectors’ concerns relating to public nuisance, public safety and anti-social behaviour; and noted objectors’ concerns about increased noise nuisance, impact upon family environment, and the likely increased numbers of clientele in the area if the application were to be granted, and thereby the likely impact on the CIZ.
The Sub Committee noted the Applicant’s representation that the impact of the premises licence would not be significant and if granted, would be mitigated by the proposed conditions agreed and offered. However, the Sub Committee considered that they had not heard sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances, such that granting the application would not add to the cumulative effect of having more licensed premises in the CIZ, with regard to the licensing objectives. Whilst the Sub-Committee heard extensively from the Applicant’s legal representative with reference to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance, the Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant and its legal representative had missed the point in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy that where a premises licence is sought for premises within a CIZ, if an applicant does not demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances, such that granting the application would not add to the cumulative effect of having more licensed premises in the CIZ, with regard to the licensing objectives, the application will be refused. The Sub-Committee were concerned that the Applicant did not appear to sufficiently address what is a very high bar to cross in terms of premises licence applications for premises in a CIZ.
The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the Applicant had explained how the Applicant would manage the activities within the premises. However, the Sub-Committee felt that the Applicant was unable to demonstrate how they would manage the noise from groups of patrons leaving the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that a large number of people would be attending and leaving the premises at similar times and noted that, although the Applicant’s dispersal policy covered the people leaving the premises, there were not sufficient measures in place for when patrons leaving would be spilling into adjacent residential streets in the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee was also concerned about the impact of importing a significant increase in footfall into the CIZ (300 plus people was talked about) who would also then be leaving through the CIZ, which already experiences a high volume of crime and disorder, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour, these issues being factors behind the creating of the CIZ in the first place. 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 impact of increased clientele and potential alcohol fuelled disorder and/or alcohol fuelled noise arising therefrom. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting met that very high bar.
The Sub Committee was therefore not satisfied that the Applicant had successfully demonstrated enough to rebut the presumption against granting a premises licence for a premises situated in a CIZ, in that the Sub-Committee were of the view that on the balance of probabilities, the premises was more likely than not to negatively add to the CIZ. The Sub-Committee was particularly mindful of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Electric Shuffle, 3-6 Steward Street & 50 Gun Street, London E1 6FQ be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Electric Shuffle cover report, item 3.1 PDF 143 KB
- Electric Shuffle Appendices Only_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 24 MB
- Supplement - FLIGHT CLUB DARTS LTD - ELECTRIC SHUFFLE SPITALFIELDS - APPLICANT EVIDENCE BUNDLE 28 12 18, item 3.1 PDF 34 MB
- Second Supplement - Circular Letter, item 3.1 PDF 79 KB