The Licensing Sub Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Tuesday 12 March 2024 to consider two applications for new premises licences. The application for The Troxy at 490 Commercial Road was refused, while the application for AV Wholesale at 47 Goulston Street was also refused.

Application for a New Premises Licence for The Troxy, 490 Commercial Road, London, E1 0HX

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Troxy London Ltd. for a new premises licence for The Troxy, located at 490 Commercial Road, London, E1 0HX. The application sought authorisation for the sale of alcohol, late-night refreshment, and various forms of regulated entertainment, with proposed hours extending later than the current licence, including non-standard timings for bank holidays, New Year's Eve, and significant sporting events. The existing licence would be surrendered if the new application was granted.

Representations against the application were received from two local residents and a residents' association, primarily citing concerns related to the prevention of public nuisance and alleged anti-social behaviour. These concerns included noise and obstruction from patrons queuing, the use of drugs and laughing gas, associated litter, noise disturbance late at night, and public urination.

The applicant's representatives, Mr. Donne (Licensing Representative) and Mr. Sutton-Roberts (Director of Troxy), explained that the application was prompted by a planned refurbishment, which would include approximately forty additional toilet facilities. They emphasised that the proposed new licence conditions were clearer, more robust, and more proportionate than those on the existing licence, which they described as vague and unenforceable. They also highlighted that none of the responsible authorities, including the Metropolitan Police, had raised concerns or made representations against the application. Mr. Sutton-Roberts provided a history of The Troxy, noting its importance as a music venue and its contribution to the local economy through employment and spending. He disputed that nitrous oxide use was linked to patrons of the venue, suggesting it was more likely to occur from vehicles parked nearby.

Mr. Askor, a local resident, detailed issues faced by residents, including patrons urinating on private property, unacceptable noise from queues, blocked pavements, and difficulties accessing car parks. He stated that Ogilvie House, a nearby residential block, housed many elderly residents. He asserted that the premises should not operate beyond midnight.

Mr. Islam, speaking on behalf of the Pitsea TRA, echoed these concerns, stating they did not wish to halt trading but believed licensable activity should not extend beyond midnight. He also mentioned audible music from within the premises and reiterated allegations of public urination, drug use, and highway obstruction.

During questioning, it was noted that it was unclear if noise nuisance complaints had been formally made to responsible authorities. The TRA spokesperson accepted they could not definitively prove drug dealing was linked to the premises but believed it was occurring. The definition of a significant sporting event was discussed, with a suggestion made for prior notification to the Licensing Authority for such events. The applicant's representative, Mr. Donne, stressed that the proposed conditions would lead to a better licence overall, with clearer conditions.

The Sub-Committee expressed significant concern about the substantially increased scope of the licence if granted, particularly the proposal to operate as a late-night venue six days a week with a higher capacity. They noted the residential nature of the area and the potential for noise disturbance from a large number of people exiting the premises in the early hours. The Sub-Committee considered that the application did not adequately address the likely impact of these extended hours on the surrounding area. Ultimately, the Sub-Committee concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate step was to refuse the application.

Decision: The application for a new premises licence for The Troxy, 490 Commercial Road, London E1 0HX was REFUSED.

Application for a New Premises Licence for AV Wholesale, 47 Goulston Street, London E1 7TP

The Sub-Committee considered an application by AV Kakker Wholesale Ltd. for a new premises licence for AV Wholesale, located at 47 Goulston Street, London E1 7TP. The application sought authorisation for the retail sale of alcohol (off-sales only) from 10:30 to 20:30 seven days a week.

The application received objections from the Licensing Authority, two residents' associations, and individual residents. These objections referenced the premises' location within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and concerns about public nuisance.

Mr. Abbie Kumar, representing the applicant, explained that the company's primary business is the wholesale of cigarettes and household goods. He stated that if granted a licence, they would sell a range of imported and hard-to-find alcoholic beverages, intended for special occasions and home consumption, not for street drinking. He argued that the premises would close early, mitigating noise concerns, and that Saturday opening hours would be flexible, typically closing by 13:00 or 14:00 hours.

Ms. Lavine Miller-Johnson, a Licensing Officer, acknowledged that the proposed hours were within the Council's framework hours. However, she noted that the application did not mention the CIZ or how the applicant would uphold licensing objectives within it. She also highlighted confusion regarding whether alcohol would be sold wholesale or retail, and expressed concern about the potential for cheap alcohol to be sold, impacting vulnerable individuals.

Mr. Christopher Lloyd, representing SPIRE (a residents' group) and local residents, stated that the premises were in a hotspot for anti-social behaviour (ASB). He argued that adding alcohol sales would exacerbate existing issues. He also raised concerns about the lack of control over the type of alcohol sold and where it would be consumed, noting the proximity to residential dwellings. SPIRE and the residents' representatives requested the rejection of the application.

During questioning, Mr. Kumar confirmed that alcohol sales would be retail, not wholesale. He suggested that selling unique alcohol products could promote multiculturalism and offer better competition against inflated prices in the area. He stated that staff would have the right to refuse sales and that they had experience operating similar businesses.

The objectors, however, remained unconvinced, pointing out that the applicant's stated intention to compete on price contradicted the purpose of the CIZ. They highlighted the detailed ASB issues in the area and expressed uncertainty about the types of alcohol that could be sold.

The Sub-Committee considered that the applicant had not adequately rebutted the presumption against granting licences within the CIZ. They found it unlikely that the proposed sales would be limited to showpiece items and more probable that the premises would compete on the price of common alcoholic products, potentially leading to increased street drinking and ASB. The Sub-Committee also noted the applicant's apparent lack of appreciation for the area's existing issues. Consequently, they were not satisfied that granting the application would avoid negatively impacting the CIZ.

Decision: The application for a new premises licence for AV Wholesale, 47 Goulston Street, London E1 7TP was REFUSED.

Extension of Decision Deadline

The Sub-Committee agreed to extend the decision deadline to 31 May 2024 for the following applications: Monogroup, 1 Monkwood Way, London E3 2EG; INIS, The Tramprey, 13 Rookwood Way, London E3 2XT; Burgers LDN, 141 Leman Street London E1 8EY; and Captain Kidd, 108 Wapping High Street, London E1W 2NA.

The meeting concluded at 4:50 p.m.