Jim Fitzpatrick is outraged by a new plan to stage all night Christmas parties on the site of a national monument to those who lost their lives at sea during the two world wars.
He has made a formal complaint to Tower Hamlets Council about an application by caterers Moving Venue to erect marquees on Trinity Square Gardens, near the Tower of London, during the forthcoming office party season.
Trinity Square Gardens were created by Act of Parliament in 1797 and restored in 2003. They are managed by the council, the Corporation of London and significantly, the War Graves Commission. They contain memorials inscribed with the names of hundreds of merchant seafarers, a large number of them Bengali lascars, who were killed while serving and supplying this country.
Moving Venue, it seems, wants to use the beautiful space to let bankers and other City workers booze away their bonuses while overlooking the Tower.
Their application seeks permission for alcohol and music entertainment during the hours of 11am to 1am from November 22 to December 17.
Having been contacted by furious boss of Trinity House, which overlooks the square, Jim, who is the MP for the area, wrote the following letter to the council:
I have been contacted by Rear Admiral Sir Jeremy de Halpert who is Deputy Master of Trinity House, Tower Hill, regarding a proposal to allow licensed entertainment in Trinity Square Gardens at Tower Hill, adjacent to the National War Memorials. The memorials are of particular note as they are dedicated to those members of the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets who lost their lives in the two world wars and have no known grave. They are thus the maritime equivalent of, among other sites, the Menin Gate in Flanders.
You will, of course, have all the details relating to this matter, but I would like to emphasise how very inappropriate the proposals are to this area. I echo Sir Jeremy’s sentiments in saying that the park includes two major National War Memorials two other significant memorials. Such a site of entertainment would impact on the dignity of the memorials and the respect due those that are remembered there. The marquee will dominate this very small park and deny the public access to one of the few open green spaces in this area. The site is adjacent to residential properties within the City of London and the venue will impact on the residents. The park is a Conservation Area and the erection of a marquee will impact on the bio-diversity of the area and on its scenic value, especially at a time when many visitors come to London in the run up to Christmas. The proposed use is at odds with nearly all the Council’s own approved plans for the park.
Along with Sir Jeremy, I wish to register my own objection to this proposal. I understand the cut-off date is 12 October. Thank you for your assistance.
Yours faithfully
Jim Fitzpatrick MP
And this is how the rather officious licensing officer at the council responded:
Thank you for your email. I acknowledge and appreciate the concerns you have raised in relation to Trinity Square Gardens.
Unfortunately, under the Licensing Act 2003 your email is not considered to be a valid representation. In order for your representation to be valid, you must make it clear how granting this particular application will have an impact on you only in relation to one or more of the following licensing objectives:
– the prevention of crime and disorder
– the prevention of public nuisance
– public safety
– the protection of children from harmUnder the above Act, for your representation to be valid, you must be one of the following:
– a person living in the vicinity of the premises
– a body representing persons living in the vicinity of the premises (i.e. residents association etc)
– a person involved in business in the vicinity of the premises
– a body representing persons involved in business in the vicinity of the premises
– a responsible authority (i.e. Police, Environmental Protection etc)
– a Ward CouncillorAlso, please be advised that we require the full address of anyone making a representation. If you wish to represent an interested party, we would need to know their details.
This, quite understandably, has further upset Jim, who today wrote the following letter back to the council:
I am writing to complain in the strongest possible terms that my representation against an ‘Entertainment Licence’ being granted on the site of Trinity Square Garden, which contains the National War Memorials, has been declared by you as, ‘…not considered to be a valid representation.’
Over 20,000 sailors’ names are recorded at the memorials. For many, this is their only grave, as they died at sea. Licensing entertainment and alcohol sales in the park is wholly inappropriate, and I believe my representation SHOULD be considered valid – not rejected out of hand by you.
I am copying this complaint to the Mayor’s Office, as well as to the Leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem Groups on the Council, and the press.
I full recognise procedures need to be observed, but your total disregard for the significance of this site as a national war grave is hugely disappointing.
I’ve called Moving Venue to see if they intend pressing ahead with their silly plan but I’ve yet to get a response.
However, I suspect their application has the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of getting through the Tower Hamlets licensing committee.
UPDATE – Saturday, Oct 8
I’ve written an article on this for the Sunday Express tomorrow – more comments from Merchant Navy veterans. The managing director of Moving Venue, Richard Beggs, also told me he’d been working with Tower Hamlets Council for six months on this idea and that he had agreed a significant rental fee for “Britain’s poorest borough”.
He also said he was hoping to have lunch soon with Lutfur Rahman about the issue. Given the likely fallout from this idea, Lutfur might want to do what he did last time he was invited to Trinity Square Gardens….ie not turn up.
He he he. That’s funny!
“However, I suspect their application has the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of getting through the Tower Hamlets licensing committee.”
Don’t you believe it Ted. The Licensing Committee’s decisions are wholly random. Nearly every councillor serves on it – and the decisions are wholly inconsistent. They refuse sensible applications yet still give way to later and later applications in the Brick Lane area (Britain’s crime and drugs capital). They give licences to shops selling alcohol at 6am in the morning just yards away from alcoholic centres and hostels such as Providence Row. Jim is quite right, but on past performance it is quite likely the application will succeed. Or not. there are no rules when it comes to Tower Hamlets and licensing.
Tower Hamlets licensing has its own mind. Remember the chip shop that got license cause its owner is related to a Lord (or Baroness should I say).
However, I am not surprised to see the rejection of Jim Fitzpatrick’ (MP) letter; as this is expected from the current Independent Mayor and his team. I hear that there are far better chances to get heard if you can get hold of the “Executive” (as he like to put it) Deputy Mayor.
On the other hand I think it may well be blocked on Jim Fitzpatrick’ letter of request to the Mayor; as you know he is trying to return to Labour and he would not let go of such a good opportunity to please Mr Fitzpatrick.
Politically by stopping this license will be a double win for the Independent Mayor!
Snowballs chance in hell………..How many backhanders of money does that equate to?
On another LBTH Licensing issue it looks like there will be the Music Festivals and the Olympic Live Site in Victoria Park next summer. Will the locals get to use the restored park at all next summer or just the paying public?
http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/59515
Mr Fitzpatrick should know that the Licensing Officers’ hands are tied – by legislation that was introduced when Mr Fitzpatrick himself was in government. The Licensing Act was drawn up with a presumption in favour of granting licenses – and ignoring the wishes of local communities unless their objections fall in one of the four categories indicated in the Licensing Officer’s email.
It beggars belief that Mr Fitzpatrick feels he is above the law – law that was written by a government he was a member of.
A better course of action – rather than complaining about Council staff giving him the response they’re required to by law – might be to ask who gave Moving Venues permission to make the application in the first place. The application for an entertainment licence is separate to that. Theoretically, even if the entertainment licence was revoked, they could still put up a marquee. The question that need to be asked are about who gave them permission? LBTH? The Corporation of London? The War Graves Commission? And take it from there.
You’ve said exactly what I was going to say – sadly the Licensing Act tightly limits the grounds on which licenses can be granted.
Actually the Licensing Law has recently undergone some major changes as a result of the need to address the lunacies introduced by the Labour government in 2003.
See the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 2010-11 which amends and supplements the Licensing Act 2003 with the intention of ‘rebalancing’ it in favour of local authorities, the police and local communities
You can read the new act enacted in September 2011 here
Click to access ukpga_20110013_en.pdf
Part 2 deals with the Amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and the following points. It’s a bit of a chunky read but should pay dividends in the future when and if stupidities like this get repeated. I’m just wondering whether the officer who responded to the MP had read it…….
PART 2
LICENSING
CHAPTER 1
AMENDMENTS OF THE LICENSING ACT 2003
Responsible authorities
103 Licensing authorities as responsible authorities
104 Primary Care Trusts and Local Health Boards as responsible authorities
Removing the vicinity test
105 Premises licences: who may make relevant representations 106 Premises licences: who may apply for review
107 Club premises certificates: who may make relevant representations
108 Club premises certificates: who may apply for review
Reducing the evidential burden on licensing authorities
109 Reducing the burden: premises licences
110 Reducing the burden: club premises certificates
111 Reducing the burden: other situations
Temporary event notices
112 Temporary event notices: who may make an objection
113 Temporary event notices: conditions
114 Temporary event notices: late notices
115 Relaxation of time limits applying to temporary event notices
116 Temporary event notices: acknowledgment of notice
117 Temporary event notice: time for objection to notice
Underage sales
118 Persistently selling alcohol to children
Early morning alcohol restriction orders
119 Early morning alcohol restriction orders
Fees
120 Suspension of licence or certificate for failing to pay annual fee
121 Power for licensing authorities to set fees
Miscellaneous
122 Licensing policy statements
123 Personal licences: relevant offences
Review
124 Review of effect of amendments on licensing scheme
CHAPTER 2
LATE NIGHT LEVY
Application of late night levy requirement in licensing authority’s area
125 Late night levy requirement
Liability to pay late night levy
126 “Relevant late night authorisation” and related definitions
127 Liability to pay late night levy
128 Amount of late night levy
Administration of late night levy
129 Payment and administration of the levy
130 Net amount of levy payments
Application of levy payments
131 Application of net amount of levy payments
Late night levy requirement: further provision
132 Introduction of late night levy requirement
133 Amendment of late night levy requirement
134 Introduction or variation of late night levy requirement: procedure 135 Permitted exemption and reduction categories
136 Late night levy: regulations 137 Interpretation
138 Crown application 139 Amendments of the Licensing Act 2003
CHAPTER 3
ALCOHOL DISORDER ZONES 140
Alcohol disorder zones: repeal
It’s worth noting that one of the reasons why the changes are being introduced is because the total costs to the tax payer of alcohol related crime and disorder is between £8billion and £13bn
If Tower Hamlets Council is really serious about community working and wants to cut costs for ALL the relevant agencies in LBTH then it I’d suggest that cutting licenses not trying to dish them out willy nilly with obviously very little thought for the consequences.
After all they’ve having a zero tolerance attitude to sex establishments so why not address the evils of alcohol and associated crime and disorder as well?
Good work Ted.
Being very picky (as the decision has now been made to ditch the whole Trinity Square Gardens application anyway) …
Although you are right that there have been amendments,
i) Clause 157 of the Act (which sets out commencement dates for the legislation) says that the Act (apart from certain limited sections) will come into force on a date specified by the Home Sec so to the best of my knowledge this isn’t in force yet
ii) This only got Royal Assent in September so everybody involved with this case will have been working under the old rules. Any amendments introduced will not apply retrospectively.
So TH Licensing team’s hands will have been tied by the provisions of the Licensing Act.
You are quite right. The British Institute of Innkeeping advise that the new rules will apply from June next year. They will not be retrospective so anyone can apply now for TENs for instance, for the Olympics period for instance after June, and apply the old lax rules (or non-rules).
The underlying point here is not politics – iy’s respect for the people who dies to keep this country free. Remember?
The underlying point here is not politics – it’s respect for the people who died to keep this country free. Remember?
[…] […]
[…] Comments « Bankers want to party on Britain’s “Menin Gate” […]