Content

Application to Vary
a Premises Licence – Bread and Butter, 72 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3AY –
REFUSAL
 
The decision of 24th
September 2025
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering
this decision from the information presented to it within the
report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard
to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:
 
The prevention of crime and disorder;
Public safety;
Prevention of public nuisance;
The protection of children from harm;
 
the application to vary a premises licence has
been refused in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3,
and LP10 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy.
 
Reasons for the
decision
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from
the Responsible Authorities: the Police
and the Licensing Authority, and Other Persons (local residents),
believed that granting the application would result in the
licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative
impact on the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (Shoreditch SPA).
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
representations of the local residents who objected to this
application due the impact it would have on the area late at
night.
 
The Sub-Committee heard representations from
the Police that the Premises Licence Holder failed to comply with
the conditions on their existing premises license. The
Sub-Committee took into consideration that both the Police and the
Licensing Authority made representations about their concerns of
how the premises was being operated, and that the Premises Licence
Holder had not demonstrated that they would not add to the
cumulative impact in the area.
 
The Sub-Committee heard that on the 24th of
August 2025 the Police witnessed noise and people outside the
premises more than were permitted under their licence, and
off-sales which had not been permitted. The hours witnessed by the
Police were after 03:00. The premises were alleged to be in breach
of conditions 20 and 21 with the level of noise that was coming
from the premises on that night. The noise limiter had not been
approved at that point. The Police had for the last year been
advising the Premises Licence Holder about the requirements that
they needed to meet and how they should operate the premises.
However, the Premises Licence Holder was still failing to comply
with the conditions on the premises licence.
 
 
 
 
The Sub-Committee heard the Police make
representations that the sound limiter has been a condition on the
licence for a year and only recently have they carried out the
necessary works. It was noted that the noise limiter was previously
wrongly installed. In addition it was
noted that the acoustic report provided by the Applicant is 18
months old. The Police made representations about three incidents
that they have witnessed at the premises which has caused them
concern.
 
The Sub-Committee heard the Licensing
Authority made representations that issues and concerns still
remained and therefore they opposed the application. They were
concerned about how the premises operated over the last year and
that the Premises Licence Holder failed to operate the premises
responsibly and had no confidence in the Premises Licence
Holder..
 
The Sub-Committee felt that although the
Premises Licence Holder tried to offer concessions in the
application, the Sub-Committee was not confident that this would
prevent the licensing objectives from being undermined. In
addition there were concerns that the
Premises Licence Holder failed to comply with the conditions on
their existing licence despite the Police warnings.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises
Licence Holder was seeking to match the premises hours of the
neighbouring bars. However there were
concerns about how the premises were being operated and failure to
comply with the existing conditions on their premises licence.
 
The Sub-Committee noted the installation of a
noise limiter a week before the hearing. However it had not been approved by the
Environmental Protection Team. The Sub-Committee were still
concerned about the premises' ability to control the noise at the
premises.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are
situated in the Shoreditch triangle within the Shoreditch Special
Policy Area. The Sub-Committee felt that the Premises Licence
Holder failed to demonstrate that they will not add to the
community of impact. It was noted there were no mitigating factors
presented in the application.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises
Licence Holder acknowledges that they have made mistakes and they
are trying to resolve them with the Police such as the noise issues
The Premises Licence Holder made representations that there is no
evidence of crime disorder at the premises.
 
The Sub-Committee took into account that the
Premises Licence Holder failed to demonstrate that they would not
add to the cumulative impact in the Shoreditch SPA. The
Sub-Committee felt there were no mitigating factors that would
justify them granting the variation of the premises licence. The
Sub-Committee also noted that the Premises Licence Holder did not
allay the concerns raised by the local residents and the
Responsible Authorities.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration when
refusing this application that each case is considered on its own
merits. The Sub-Committee believed that the licensing objectives
could not be promoted by granting this variation application, and
as such believed it was appropriate to refuse the application in
its entirety. It should be explicitly noted that the Sub-Committee
had no confidence in the Premises Licence Holder.
 
Public
Informative
 
The Premises Licence Holder is reminded to
comply with the conditions on the premises licence.
 
The Premises Licence Holder is advised to
resolve the noise issues, to arrange for the works to be approved,
and obtain a new noise assessment report if required.