The Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee of Newham Council met on Wednesday 2 September 2026 to consider a new premises licence application for The Crystxl Lounge Ltd, located at 339 Barking Road, East Ham, E6 1LA. After hearing representations from responsible authorities and considering the application in the absence of the applicant, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the licence.

New Premises Licence Application for The Crystxl Lounge Ltd Refused

The Sub-Committee refused the application for a new premises licence for The Crystxl Lounge Ltd, located at 339 Barking Road, East Ham, E6 1LA. The application sought authorisation for the supply of alcohol, exhibition of films, live music, and recorded music, with associated opening hours. Representations against the application were received from the Council's Commercial Environmental Health Team, Licensing Team, and Trading Standards Team, raising concerns about public nuisance, public safety, crime and disorder, and the protection of children from harm.

The applicant, Shereen-Crystal Emmanuel, Director of The Crystxl Lounge Ltd, did not attend the meeting. This was the second occasion the hearing had been adjourned and rearranged due to her absence. After a 30-minute wait, the Sub-Committee proceeded in her absence, deeming it in the public interest.

Concerns Raised by Responsible Authorities:

• Commercial Environmental Health Team: Raised concerns about potential public nuisance to nearby residents from live and recorded music and film screenings. They proposed conditions for background music only and the use of wireless headphones for films, which the applicant declined.
• Licensing Team: Expressed concerns about the adequacy of the application in addressing licensing objectives, particularly regarding alcohol control, CCTV arrangements, customer management, alcohol dispensing methods, and access/egress through the barber shop. They noted unanswered questions and a lack of detailed operational information.
• Trading Standards: Highlighted concerns about the applicant's understanding of licensing regulations, staff training, proxy sales, safeguarding, and film exhibition requirements. They felt the provided responses were not sufficiently detailed.

Sub-Committee Deliberations and Decision:

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is located within a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), where there is a rebuttable presumption against granting new premises licences unless the applicant demonstrates no negative impact on licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that this presumption had been rebutted.

Key issues that led to the refusal included:

• Inconsistency in the Application: A significant discrepancy was noted where the application sought alcohol sales until 23:00 on Sundays, but stated the premises would close to the public at 22:00 on Sundays. This raised concerns about the accuracy of the application and the applicant's understanding of the licensing regime.
• Suitability of the Premises: The licensed area was described as a rear garden area accessed and egressed through a barber shop. Responsible authorities raised concerns about public safety, the suitability of these access arrangements, and the potential overlap with the barber shop's operation. The applicant's reference to an indoor area during winter months lacked clear information or plans.
• Vague and Insufficient Conditions: The operating schedule was considered to contain generic and insufficient conditions. Despite written responses and a safeguarding policy submitted by the applicant, many specific concerns from responsible authorities remained unanswered, particularly regarding CCTV, alcohol dispensing, staff training, and customer management.
• Applicant's Lack of Engagement: The applicant's failure to attend two scheduled hearings prevented the Sub-Committee from assessing her knowledge and understanding of the licensing framework, the Statement of Licensing Policy, cumulative impact issues, operational arrangements, the role of the Designated Premises Supervisor, and alcohol control measures.

The Sub-Committee concluded that, given the location within a CIZ, the deficiencies in the operating schedule, the unanswered questions, and the applicant's failure to attend the hearings, granting the licence would be likely to undermine the licensing objectives. Therefore, the appropriate and proportionate step was to refuse the application.

The applicant will be sent the full written reasons for the decision within five working days. The applicant, responsible authorities, and interested parties have the right to appeal the decision to the magistrates' court within 21 days.