The Licensing Sub Committee B of Hackney Council met on Tuesday 11 August 2026 to consider two applications. The committee approved an application to vary the premises licence for The Black Eel, allowing for extended hours and the addition of new conditions. However, a Temporary Event Notice for Bar A Bar was refused due to concerns raised by the Metropolitan Police.

The Black Eel, 41 Kingsland High Street, London, E8 2JS

The committee approved the application to vary the premises licence for The Black Eel. This variation allows for extended hours for late-night refreshment until 1:30 AM and the sale of alcohol until 1:00 AM on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. The decision also included the addition of eight new conditions to the licence, covering aspects such as displaying the Designated Premises Supervisor's contact details, staff training in welfare and vulnerability schemes, waste management, and litter removal.

The committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined by the extended hours. They noted that the premises being allowed later hours would assist with dispersal in the area and that the applicant had mitigated concerns raised by a local resident. The committee also acknowledged that the premises had operated under Temporary Event Notices without issue. The applicant, Reach for the Oars Limited, represented by solicitor Niall McCann, argued that the extension was necessary to remain competitive and that their existing dispersal policy, along with the proposed new conditions, would ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives. The sole objector, a local resident, had raised concerns about potential public nuisance and crime and disorder due to increased footfall and noise, particularly given the premises' location in a Special Consideration Area. However, the committee found that the applicant had adequately addressed these concerns.

Bar A Bar, 133-135 Stoke Newington Road, London, N16 8BT

The committee refused the Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for Bar A Bar. The Metropolitan Police had objected to the TEN on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, and the prevention of public nuisance. The police cited an ongoing investigation into allegations of the venue operating beyond its licensed hours and expressed concerns about the overall management of the venue.

The committee agreed with the police's assessment, stating that the evidence presented indicated that the proposed event would undermine the licensing objectives. They noted that the police had received CCTV evidence late and that it was not suitable for consideration. Furthermore, the committee found that the Premises User had not provided the evidence requested by the police and did not inspire confidence. The committee felt that the Premises User needed to improve their management structure and demonstrate accountability to responsible authorities. Consequently, a Counter Notice was served, meaning the proposed event could not proceed as planned. The Premises User, Kyriakos Polos Polos, argued that they had a good track record with previous TENs and had not experienced issues. However, the police's concerns regarding communication and the suitability of evidence were significant factors in the committee's decision.