Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for (The Town House) 5 Fournier Street, London, E1 6QE
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 Town House, 5 Fournier Street, London E1 6QE. The application was seeking a licence for the sale of alcohol. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of local residents. It was also noted that there was one letter of support.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mike Nickson, Licensing Representative on behalf of the Applicants explained that they wished to vary the application to apply for off sales only, this was due to the concerns raised by residents. He said they were not applying for late night refreshments or regulated entertainment, but merely the flexibility to sell craft artisan beers/ciders. He said that it had been a coffee shop for the past 20 years, a charming and cultural café. He said that there were two floors to the premises and the licence would relate to the basement floor only. He said it was not proposed to operate the premises as an off licence, but to sell artisan and craft beers/ciders produced in small quantities by the Applicants, which would be on sale in the basement floor only and therefore not be behind the shop window or openly displayed on the premises. Therefore, the proposed sale of artisan and craft beers/ciders was not likely to attract street drinkers.
He explained that many discussions had been made and many have welcomed the idea with letters of support contained in the agenda and supplemental agenda. He said that the hours were within the framework hours and objections raised by residents related to activity from other licensed premises in the local area.
Mr Nickson acknowledged that the premises was within a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), and that therefore, the burden was on the Applicants to prove how they would rebut the presumption against granting a licensing application relating to premise in a CIZ. Mr Nickson also argued that any cumulative impact which objectors relied on, would need to be proved by evidence. It was noted that no Responsible Authorities had objected to the application as they had no concerns. It was noted that the Applicants estimated that the proposed sale of alcohol would account for no more than 5% of the business. The Applicants submitted that any decision is to be proportionate and reasonable and based on evidence.
The Applicants presented that the Town House had community support, and that there had been dialogue with residents for the past 18 months, as a result of which the Applicants had indicated having applied self-imposed conditions. The Applicants also suggested conditions such as restricting the licence to craft and artisan beers only and for the licence only to be operated by Fiona and Clifford Atkins.
Mr Nickson referred Members to page of 209 of the agenda which referred to the Special Cumulative Impact Policy for the Brick Lane and Bethnal Green Area, in particular section 19.8 which lists examples of factors the Licensing Authority may consider as exceptional may include, though are not limited to;
- Small premises with a capacity of fifty persons or less who only intend to operate during framework hours.
- Premises which are not alcohol led and operate only within framework hours such as coffee shops.
He said the premises had a capacity of 14 people, was not alcohol led and the hours were within the Council’s framework hours.
At the request of the Chair, local residents who objected, Mr Glen Mifsud, Mr Matt Piper and Mr Barra Little, all raised similar concerns that the premises were not suitable for the sale of alcohol. These residents also mentioned past experiences where the premises had events held under temporary event notices, when it had been noisy and no apparent controls of noise by the management. The fact that it was in close proximity to the residential properties, alcohol being sold as off sales would mean people drinking on the streets, sitting on door steps smoking and causing public nuisance.
The objectors stressed the fact that the premises were within a CIZ, another licenced premises would add to the cumulative impact of other licensed premises in that CIZ. Mr Little highlighted the fact that he had not been consulted, and he lived next door to the premises. The objectors felt that conditions put forward were not far enough to protect residents from public nuisance. It was in a largely residential street. The building itself was partly residential and to introduce alcohol would be a detriment to peace and enjoyment of people living there.
In response to Members questions the following was noted;
- That the premises were not commercial premises in isolation as there were other commercial premises on the same street.
- There would be no alcohol on the ground floor and there would be no advertisement for the sale of alcohol.
- The craft cider would be very limited, and very expensive.
- If customers were seen to be inebriated they would not be served and this would be strictly controlled.
- That the Applicants had been at the premises for the past 18 years.
- That the Applicants made their own craft beers/ciders.
- There would be no consumption off the premises.
- That the Applicants were willing to restrict the sale of alcohol to craft and artisan beers/ciders only.
- That alcohol would form a small part of the business.
Members adjourned the meeting at 8.15pm to deliberate and reconvened at 8.45pm.
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 local residents present at the meeting with particular regard to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, and the prevention of crime and disorder.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and so, 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 undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ
The Sub-Committee took into account the objectors’ concerns relating to the public nuisance, 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. The Sub Committee noted that the premises was situated in an area where it was a predominately residential and noted residents’ concerns that there were residents who lived in close proximity to the premises, who had not been consulted by the Applicant during the consultation process.
The Applicant’s Representative explained that the impact of the premises licence would not be significant and if granted, would be mitigated by the proposed conditions they had offered in their operating schedule. The Applicant’s representative talked about applications where conditions limited the sale of alcohol to off sales only, and to restrict the sale of alcohol to only craft and artisan ciders, but did not expressly seek to amend the application as it stood.
The Sub Committee considered that they had not heard sufficient evidence to demonstrate how, if granted, the application as it stood would not add to the cumulative impact in the Brick Lane CIZ. The Council’s Licensing Policy regarding applications relating to premises in a CIZ was strict as to refusing an application unless an applicant had demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances, such that granting the application would not add to the cumulative effect on the licensing objectives in the CIZ.
In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee made an observation that it lay open to the Applicant to reconsider and resubmit differently, the application if the Applicant saw fit, and whilst this afforded no guarantees to the Applicant in that event, depending on what transpired upon a resubmitted application, a fresh application in revised terms might be considered differently.
Members reached a decision and the decision was unanimous. Members refused the application. The Sub-Committee was particularly mindful of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance and
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Town House, 5 Fournier Street, London E1 6QE be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Townhouse cover report, item 4.2 PDF 115 KB
- Townhouse Appendices Only, item 4.2 PDF 5 MB
- Supporting Letters_Redacted, item 4.2 PDF 122 KB