URL: https://hackney.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8587

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Committee C

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Application to Vary a Premises Licence – Bread and Butter, 72 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3AY – REFUSAL   The decision of 24th September 2025   The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all 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 refused in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3, and LP10 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.   Reasons for the decision   The Licensing Sub-Committee, having heard from the Responsible Authorities: the Police and the Licensing Authority, and Other Persons (local residents), believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (Shoreditch SPA).   The Sub-Committee took into consideration the representations of the local residents who objected to this application due the impact it would have on the area late at night.   The Sub-Committee heard representations from the Police that the Premises Licence Holder failed to comply with the conditions on their existing premises license. The Sub-Committee took into consideration that both the Police and the Licensing Authority made representations about their concerns of how the premises was being operated, and that the Premises Licence Holder had not demonstrated that they would not add to the cumulative impact in the area.   The Sub-Committee heard that on the 24th of August 2025 the Police witnessed noise and people outside the premises more than were permitted under their licence, and off-sales which had not been permitted. The hours witnessed by the Police were after 03:00. The premises were alleged to be in breach of conditions 20 and 21 with the level of noise that was coming from the premises on that night. The noise limiter had not been approved at that point. The Police had for the last year been advising the Premises Licence Holder about the requirements that they needed to meet and how they should operate the premises. However, the Premises Licence Holder was still failing to comply with the conditions on the premises licence.         The Sub-Committee heard the Police make representations that the sound limiter has been a condition on the licence for a year and only recently have they carried out the necessary works. It was noted that the noise limiter was previously wrongly installed. In addition it was noted that the acoustic report provided by the Applicant is 18 months old. The Police made representations about three incidents that they have witnessed at the premises which has caused them concern.   The Sub-Committee heard the Licensing Authority made representations that issues and concerns still remained and therefore they opposed the application. They were concerned about how the premises operated over the last year and that the Premises Licence Holder failed to operate the premises responsibly and had no confidence in the Premises Licence Holder..   The Sub-Committee felt that although the Premises Licence Holder tried to offer concessions in the application, the Sub-Committee was not confident that this would prevent the licensing objectives from being undermined. In addition there were concerns that the Premises Licence Holder failed to comply with the conditions on their existing licence despite the Police warnings.   The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises Licence Holder was seeking to match the premises hours of the neighbouring bars. However there were concerns about how the premises were being operated and failure to comply with the existing conditions on their premises licence.   The Sub-Committee noted the installation of a noise limiter a week before the hearing. However it had not been approved by the Environmental Protection Team. The Sub-Committee were still concerned about the premises' ability to control the noise at the premises.   The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are situated in the Shoreditch triangle within the Shoreditch Special Policy Area. The Sub-Committee felt that the Premises Licence Holder failed to demonstrate that they will not add to the community of impact. It was noted there were no mitigating factors presented in the application.   The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises Licence Holder acknowledges that they have made mistakes and they are trying to resolve them with the Police such as the noise issues The Premises Licence Holder made representations that there is no evidence of crime disorder at the premises.   The Sub-Committee took into account that the Premises Licence Holder failed to demonstrate that they would not add to the cumulative impact in the Shoreditch SPA. The Sub-Committee felt there were no mitigating factors that would justify them granting the variation of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Premises Licence Holder did not allay the concerns raised by the local residents and the Responsible Authorities.   The Sub-Committee took into consideration when refusing this application that each case is considered on its own merits. The Sub-Committee believed that the licensing objectives could not be promoted by granting this variation application, and as such believed it was appropriate to refuse the application in its entirety. It should be explicitly noted that the Sub-Committee had no confidence in the Premises Licence Holder.   Public Informative   The Premises Licence Holder is reminded to comply with the conditions on the premises licence.   The Premises Licence Holder is advised to resolve the noise issues, to arrange for the works to be approved, and obtain a new noise assessment report if required.   Your right to appeal   If you are aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction attached to this decision, you have the right to appeal to Thames Magistrates Court, 58 Bow Road, London E3 4DJ within 21 days of the date you receive this written decision.   You can also contact the court by email: [email protected]      

Date of Decision: September 24, 2025