Content

RESOLVED:
 
The decision
 
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 for a premises licence has been refused in
accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3, LP6 and LP12
within the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy.
 
Reasons for the decision
 
The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard from the
Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police Service (“the
Police”) and Other Persons (local residents objecting to the
application) believed that granting the application for a shadow
premises licence would result in the licensing objectives being
undermined.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
representations of the 49 Other Persons who objected to this
application due the impact it would have on local residents late at
night. The Sub-committee took into account representations about
the impact of sleep deprivation on local residents, and that the
premises had a negative impact on the area. The Sub-committee took
into account that there were also public safety concerns In a
densely populated area where no consideration was given to local
residents.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
representations made from 11 local residents who supported the
Applicant’s application that the grant of the premises
licence would help to make the area more of a community, and it
will add to community safety.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
representations made by the Police’s legal representative
that there has to be conformity and transparency of licensing
decision-making. Unless there is a good reason to depart from the
decision in July 2023, then the decision should be a balancing act
when determining the application, which, if granted, would
circumvent concerns of local residents.
 
The Sub-committee took into account the Applicant’s
representations that he does not intend to trade or operate the
premises, if the shadow licence is granted, and that the premises
would remain closed pending the sale of the premises. The Applicant
made representations that he has empathy for the local residence,
and that Luke
Alford is the Designated Premises Supervisor, who is a
solicitor, and he would not allow Shoreditch Bar Group to trade in
any circumstances. It is a framework premise licence and it will be
conditioned.
 
After carefully considering all the representations and
evidence from the Licensing Authority, the Police and their legal
representative, and a number of representations from local
residents both for and against the application, and the Applicant
and their legal representative the Sub-committee felt that they
could not grant the shadow premises licence.
 
The Sub-committee felt that the Applicant and their legal
representative had said nothing that gave them confidence about how
the premises would operate if the shadow premises licence was
granted. The Sub-committee felt that the Applicant had not
addressed their concerns relating to the impact the premises would
have on local residents and the area. The Sub-committee felt that
the business issues raised by the Applicant were not grounds for
granting the shadow premises licence.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration the
representations made by the local residents who objected to the
application and their concerns about public nuisance and the impact
of anti-social behaviour. The Sub-committee felt the local
residents made a compelling case.
 
The Sub-committee felt that the licensing objectives would
be undermined, and they took into consideration the representations
from the Police and the Licensing Authority. The Sub-committee took
into account that although there were 42 conditions proposed to
operate the premises the Licensing Authority were not persuaded by
this. The Sub-committee also took into account the concerns raised
about the proposed management of the premises. The Sub-committee
felt that the Police and their legal representative made a
compelling case as to why a shadow premises licence should not be
granted.
 
The Sub-committee were not convinced that there was a
material change in the representation made at this hearing from the
representations and evidence presented on 13 July at the review of
the premises licence. The Sub-committee felt there was no good
reason to go against the decision that the Sub-committee made on 13
July 2023. The Sub-committee felt that Simmons as the new operator
should have made an application for a premises licence as
previously advised and to address the concerns and objections
raised. The Sub-committee also were not convinced that Simmons
would be able to operate a restaurant because they had no
experience of operating restaurants.
 
The Sub-committee took into consideration when refusing
this application that each case is considered on its merits. The
Sub-committee believed that the licensing objectives could not be
promoted by granting this application for a shadow premises
licence, and as such believed it was appropriate to
refuse the application in its entirety.