The Hackney Council Licensing Sub-Committee B convened on 9 June 2025, addressing a premises licence review for Bar 161, 161 Mare Street and a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) objection for Night Tales, Units 13-15 Bohemia Place. The committee ultimately decided to issue a counter notice for the TEN, preventing the event from proceeding, and deferred the review of the premises licence for Bar 161.

Temporary Event Notice: Night Tales, Units 13-15 Bohemia Place, London, E8 1DU

The committee decided to issue a counter notice, preventing the event from proceeding. The Environmental Protection team had objected to a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for Night Tales, scheduled for 13 June 2025, based on concerns about potential public nuisance.

The council's standing policy is that when considering an objection to a TEN, the council will:

• Expect that any existing conditions will be maintained (where relevant) in circumstances where an event is to take place at a premises that has an existing authorisation.
• Assess any history of complaints as a result of licensable activity that may or may not have been authorised by a TEN.
• Consider the track record of the premises user.
• Consider any other control measures proposed to mitigate the objection.

According to the report, Night Tales had submitted several TENs in the past year:

John Anani, from Environmental Protection, cited six noise complaints related to the premises between December 2024 and April 2025, and objected to the application on those grounds.

Review of Premises Licence: Bar 161, 161 Mare Street, London, E8 3RH

The sub-committee considered an application for the review of the premises licence for Bar 161, initiated by Channing Riviere, on behalf of the Hackney Licensing Service, citing concerns over crime and disorder and public nuisance.

According to the application for review, despite previous engagement with the Licensing Authority and the Metropolitan Police, the licensee, Fatih Seyfullah Seidoglu, continued to operate the premises in a manner that did not comply with the licence.

The application stated that between September and November 2024, the Licensing Service received reports from the Metropolitan Police Licensing Unit that the premises had not been operating in accordance with the premises licence. Examples included:

• 7 September 2024: Patrons were observed consuming alcohol outside the premises at 00:15 and 01:45, suggesting a breach of authorised hours.
• 13 October 2024: Police noted only alcohol was being consumed, with no hot food observed.
• 25 October 2024: Patrons were observed consuming alcohol without a table meal.
• 2 November 2024: Patrons were served at the bar, the kitchen was closed, and amplified music was played, which is not authorised by the premises licence.
• 16 November 2024: Staff were unable to provide CCTV footage to the police, and the kitchen was closed while alcohol was being sold.
• 24 November 2024: Patrons were drinking inside and outside the venue, with no food present, also indicating operation beyond authorised hours.

On 29 November 2024, council officers visited the premises and were able to purchase alcohol without a table meal, violating condition 14 of the premises licence, which states:

Intoxicating liquor shall not be sold, supplied, or consumed on the premises otherwise than to persons who are taking a substantial table meal from the menu and that the consumption of intoxicating liquor by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals. The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only

The officers were also allowed to take the glass container of alcohol outside the premises, which is non-compliant with condition 19 of the premises licence.

Following these incidents, the Licensing Service invited the licensee to a formal recorded interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). During the interview on 7 February 2025, Mr Seidoglu chose not to comment on the questions, but his legal representative read a written statement.

On 16 February 2025, council officers again visited the premises and purchased alcohol without a table meal, although they were later given complimentary chips.

The Licensing Authority expressed a loss of confidence in the licensee's ability to comply with the premises licence and promote the licensing objectives, suggesting the revocation of the premises licence.

As an alternative to revocation, the Licensing Authority suggested modifications to the premises licence, including:

• Removing the provision of late night refreshment outdoors.
• Modifying the hours for late night refreshment indoors to 23:00-00:00 on Fridays and Saturdays.
• Modifying the hours for the supply of alcohol.
• Modifying the opening hours of the premises.
• Removing non-standard hours for licensable activity.
• Adding or modifying conditions related to refused sales of alcohol, age verification, staff training, a written dispersal policy, limiting the number of patrons in the smoking area, and recording details of door supervisors.

The Metropolitan Police supported the review, citing repeated breaches of the licence conditions related to the sale of alcohol with a substantial meal, consumption of alcohol outside the premises, and operating beyond permitted hours.

The sub-committee deferred making a decision on the licence review.