Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: November 25, 2025

Purpose:

Content: RESOLVED:   Application to Vary a Premises Licence – The Black Eel (Former Draughts), 41 Kingsland High Street, London, E8 2JS – APPROVAL   The decision of 25th November 2025   The Licensing Sub-Committee, in considering this decision from the information presented to them within the report and at the hearing and having regard to the promotion of 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 approved in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing and the proposed conditions set out in paragraph 8.1 of the report as follows:     ·  The changes to layout of the premises have been granted to show the outside bar (which was already in situ but not shown in plan) and to add a private hire room on the first floor. ·  Condition 36 shall be amended to read as follows:   “The capacity of the premises shall be 350 exclusive of members of staff”     ·  Condition 37 shall be amended to read as follows:   “There will be a minimum of 350 seats or stools available for patrons at   all times.”   And the following conditions to be added to the premises licence:    ·  The Premises Licence Holder shall submit a written dispersal policy to the Licensing Authority. The dispersal policy shall be implemented at the premises. All staff shall be briefed on this dispersal policy. A copy of the policy shall be kept on the premises and shall be produced to a police officer or other authorised officer upon request. ·  After 22:00 no more than 10 patrons will be permitted to smoke outside the premises at any one time.   Reasons for the decision   The application to vary this premises licence has been approved, as members of the Licensing Sub-Committee were satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined.     The Sub-Committee took into consideration there was one Other Person (a local resident) who made representations on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance and crime, a risk he associates with the increased capacity. The local resident also questioned the lack of a dispersal policy and no representations by other responsible authorities.   The Sub-Committee considered the representations made by the representative for the Premises Licence Holder. The representative explained that the variation application was necessary due to a recent refurbishment, which also incorporated a new first-floor room intended as a dedicated private space. And that the existing outside bar was not reflected in the current approved plan.   It was further submitted that the application to increase capacity from 300 to 350 is supported by a new fire risk assessment (FRA) conducted by a third party. The representative highlighted that no other responsible authority had made representations, suggesting their satisfaction with the application. Crucially, the Premises Licence Holder had reached an agreement on conditions with the Environmental  Health Authority  (Environmental Enforcement) / Community Safety and Enforcement Service, leading to the withdrawal of their earlier representations.  The representative for the Premises Licence Holder indicated that the establishment is not a nightclub or an off-licence and the increased capacity is relatively small (16.67%) however they were willing to provide a dispersal policy.   The Sub-Committee noted no other Responsible Authorities made representations.  The Sub-Committee also noted that the Environmental  Health Authority  (Environmental Enforcement) withdrew their representations after agreeing conditions with the Premises Licence Holder. Whilst the Sub-Committee noted the conditions agreed with this responsible authority, the applicant was asked to specifically address how THEY would control the number of patrons smoking to ensure that noise nuisance is controlled.  The representative for the Premises Licence Holder indicated that they would be happy to accept a condition of limiting the number of patrons smoking outside to no more than 10 patrons after 22:00.   The Sub-Committee considered the local resident’s relevant representations concerning the licensing objectives and in particular the impact of the variations with the increased capacity to 350 persons.    The Sub-Committee considered also that the Fire Risk Assessment allowed for a capacity of 350 persons. The Sub-Committee considered the architectural plan submitted with the application.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises Licence Holder now agreed to submit a dispersal policy and this should serve to mitigate and address any licensing concerns about capacity.   Having taken all of the above factors into consideration the Sub-Committee  was satisfied that by granting this variation of the premises licence with conditions, the licensing objectives would be promoted.